NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDUARDO STEVEN CASTRO- No. 20-73824 HENRIQUEZ; KARLA NOHEMY HENRIQUEZ-CERON, Agency Nos. A206-845-157 A206-845-172 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 18, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and KOH, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,** District Judge. Karla Henriquez-Ceron (“Henriquez-Ceron”) and her minor son Eduardo Castro-Henriquez (“Eduardo”), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition in part, deny in part, and grant and remand in part for proceedings consistent with this disposition.1 1. We grant the petition for review as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims. Petitioners sought asylum and withholding of removal based on Henriquez-Ceron’s membership in two particular social groups (“PSGs”): “women in a domestic relationship who are unable to leave that relationship” and “El Salvadorian women in a domestic relationship with a member of the military who are afraid to leave.” The IJ found that Henriquez-Ceron was not a member of either PSG. The BIA, stating that petitioners did not “meaningfully contest” that finding, deemed the issue abandoned. The BIA did so in error. Petitioners’ brief to the BIA fairly put the BIA on notice of a challenge to the IJ’s membership finding. See Martinez v. Barr, 941 F.3d 907, 922 (9th Cir. 2019) (“‘[O]ur precedent requires nothing more than’ putting ‘the BIA on notice’ of a challenge such that the BIA ‘had an opportunity to pass’ on it.” (alteration in original) (quoting Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004))); Bare v. Barr, 975 1 The parties represented at oral argument that they were amenable to mediation, and the court encourages them to pursue this option. 2 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020) (noting that “the petitioner may raise a general argument in the administrative proceeding and then raise a more specific legal issue on appeal”). As the government acknowledged at oral argument, neither the agency’s cognizability finding nor its nexus finding provide an alternate basis on which to uphold the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding. These findings rested on Matter of A-B- (“A-B- I”), 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (Att’y Gen. 2018), which has since been vacated by Matter of A-B- (“A-B- III”), 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (Att’y Gen. 2021). Therefore, we remand for the agency to address the issue of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals