FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA ROSA GONZALEZ-DE TEJADA, No. 08-72768
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-115-966
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ana Rosa Gonzalez-De Tejada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and
we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of Gonzales-De Tejada’s CAT
claim, because she has not shown it is more likely than not she will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador if she is
returned. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
Regarding the denial of Gonzales-De Tejada’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims, substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s finding that there
was “no credible evidence the government and police cannot or will not protect”
petitioner, because evidence in the country reports indicated, among other things,
that witnesses of gang-related violence had been murdered. In addition, substantial
evidence does not support the IJ’s determination that Gonzalez-De Tejada feared
only random violence or crime, because she presented evidence the gangs
threatened her with death because she was a witness to gang violence. Further,
when the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the
benefit of this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th
Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and
2 08-72768
Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I.
& N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we remand Gonzalez-De Tejada’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions,
and for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura,
537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this disposition, we do not
reach the contentions regarding relocation at this time.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 08-72768