NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KHALIL ABDULAZIZ MOHAMAD AL No. 09-70089
TAREB,
Agency No. A079-656-259
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 16, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Khalil Abdulaziz Mohamad-Al-Tareb (“Al-Tareb”), a native and citizen of
Yemen, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Al-Tareb asserted past persecution and a fear of future persecution as
well as a claim for humanitarian asylum relief. We remand.
This court’s jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252. This court
reviews the relevant legal conclusions de novo, Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d
744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009), and the IJ’s factual findings under the substantial
evidence standard, Lopez-Rodriquez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.
2008).
We conclude that the BIA properly rejected Al-Tareb’s CAT claim.
However, in denying relief the IJ did not afford a presumption of future fear of
persecution to Al-Tareb, despite having assumed past persecution. This constituted
error and requires a remand.
We had previously remanded this matter to the Board for a determination as
to whether humanitarian asylum should be granted to Al-Tareb. Although the
issue of humanitarian asylum was not before the IJ at the initial hearing, the Board
decided the question on the record before the IJ. The factual findings relevant to
Al-Tareb’s humanitarian asylum claim were thus made in the first instance by the
Board. Because we are remanding to the IJ to address the future persecution issue,
a remand is also appropriate on this issue.
2
We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
3