NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR EDGARDO ACOSTA No. 19-71297 PERALTA, Agency No. A087-542-856 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 3, 2021 Phoenix, Arizona Before: W. FLETCHER, MILLER, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Victor Edgardo Acosta Peralta petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We refer to petitioner as “Victor” to distinguish him from his father, Bernardo Acosta Peralta, whose petition we resolve today in a separate * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. memorandum disposition. See Bernardo Acosta Peralta v. Wilkinson, No. 19- 72033 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2021). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand to the Board for further proceedings. 1. Because the Board did not adopt the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding but instead assumed credibility, we likewise assume Victor’s testimony to be credible. Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 828 (9th Cir. 2014). We therefore assume the accuracy of Victor’s “factual assertions” and “determine whether the facts, and their reasonable inferences, satisfy the elements of the claim for relief.” Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018). The Board principally based its denial of Victor’s withholding claim on the lack of nexus between any persecution and Victor’s family-based particular social group, which the Board assumed to be cognizable. Taking Victor’s testimony as true, that finding was not supported by substantial evidence. To prove nexus for his withholding claim, Victor needed to show only that his family membership was “a reason”—not a “central reason”—for any past persecution. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Victor and his family members repeatedly testified that the assailants targeted Victor because of his familial ties. And Victor testified that the assailants hounded his family across several different parts of Mexico, accosted his siblings, threatened his aunt, and murdered his 2 brother and uncles. This evidence compels the conclusion that the assailants would not have beaten Victor or threatened him with death were it not for his familial ties. The Board relied on translations of two newspaper accounts of the deaths of Victor’s brother and uncles to hold that Victor had not established that their deaths “were motivated by [a] financial or other criminal basis.” Although we question the translation’s accuracy with respect to the key issue of the date on which Victor’s uncles were killed, we must accept the translations, which Victor did not challenge. Nevertheless, the articles do not displace Victor’s presumptively credible testimony that the assailants killed his relatives for …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals