FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO ARRESCURRENAGA; et al., No. 07-70967
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A075-540-994
A075-540-995
v. A075-540-996
A075-540-997
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
**
Submitted June 29, 2010
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Julio Arrescurrenaga and Jacinta Malaver (“adult petitioners”), and their
children Carolina and Andrea, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the immigration
judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny in part
and grant in part the petition for review.
The BIA found that adult petitioners had failed to establish past persecution
because the attacks they suffered were inherent risks in their duties as police
officers. The record does not compel the conclusion that adult petitioners suffered
harm on account of their actual or imputed political opinion, or as members of a
particular social group consisting of police officers. See id. at 1029–30.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that adult petitioners do not
have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on their status as former
police officers because they failed to show that the government is unwilling or
unable to protect them. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153–54 (9th
Cir. 2005).
Andrea and Carolina argued to the BIA that they suffered past persecution
and have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their membership
in a particular social group, namely their family. The BIA, however, did not
address their claims. Accordingly, we grant the petition with respect to Andrea
and Carolina’s claims and remand for the BIA to address them in the first instance.
2 07-70967
See Sagadyak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the BIA [is] not
free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner”); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16–18 (2002) (per curiam). We also grant the petition and remand as to
Carolina’s claim that she is eligible for humanitarian asylum relief under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B), due to her growth hormone deficiency, because the BIA
also failed to address this claim. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 07-70967