NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RAJIV BATRA, No. 12-73517
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-669-042
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rajiv Batra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We grant
the petition for review and we remand.
The agency denied asylum and withholding of removal because it found
Batra failed to establish that an imputed political opinion or other protected ground
was or would be at least one central reason for harm he suffered or fears.
Substantial evidence, however, does not support the agency’s nexus determination
because the evidence compels the conclusion that at least one central reason for the
physical abuse to which Batra was subjected by Indian police was an imputed
political opinion. See Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1159-62 (9th Cir. 2014);
see also Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1018-20 (9th Cir. 2011) (record compelled
the conclusion that petitioner established one central reason for persecution was a
protected ground).
Finally, in denying Batra’s CAT claim, the agency did not consider that
Batra was detained for five days and severely beaten by police after relocating
from Punjab to Delhi. See Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2010)
(agency erred by failing to analyze potentially dispositive evidence).
Thus, we grant the petition as to Batra’s asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT claims, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
2 12-73517
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 12-73517