FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 02 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS VILLA-MERAZ, AKA Isidro Cruz No. 17-70100 Silva, Agency No. A079-767-615 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 11, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, CALLAHAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Jesus Villa-Meraz petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. petition as to the asylum claim, and grant the petition as to the withholding of removal and CAT claims. “We examine the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Where, as here, the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). 1. Asylum and Withholding of Removal To qualify for asylum, an applicant must establish persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. Parada, 902 F.3d at 909. The protected ground must be “at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(I); see Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish a “clear probability” that he would be subject to persecution on account of a protected ground. Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 617 (9th Cir. 2004). In contrast to asylum, applicants for withholding of removal must simply establish that a protected ground was “a reason” they were persecuted; the protected ground does 2 not have to be the only reason or “a central reason” they were persecuted. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–59 (9th Cir. 2017); Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2017). Here, the agency correctly found that Villa-Meraz suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution and that his proposed protected grounds—membership in his family and imputed political opinion—constituted protected grounds. See, e.g., Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015); Molina-Estrada, 293 F.3d at 1095. But the agency concluded that Villa-Meraz did not establish nexus between his persecution and these protected grounds. This determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Villa-Meraz’s brother, Manuel, was an elected official in Mexico. While in office, Manuel refused to cooperate with the cartel. Substantial evidence shows Manuel was kidnapped and murdered by the cartel soon after he announced he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals