NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 13 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EDGAR ENRIQUE PENA-RODRIGUEZ, No. 11-73171
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-980-511
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Enrique Pena-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 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 the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.
In denying Pena-Rodriguez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the
agency found Pena-Rodriguez failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. 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 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). Further, the
BIA’s basis for rejecting Pena-Rodriguez’s family-based social group claim is
unclear. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand is
appropriate where basis for agency’s decision is unclear). Thus, we remand Pena-
Rodriguez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if
any, of the foregoing decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)
(per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach Pena-Rodriguez’s remaining
challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims
at this time.
2 11-73171
Finally, with respect to CAT relief, the BIA rejected Pena-Rodriguez’s claim
without analysis. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2013)
(explaining the BIA reached CAT conclusion “[w]ithout analysis” and “failed to
state with sufficient particularity and clarity the reasons for this decision”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, we remand for the BIA to analyze
Pena-Rodriguez’s CAT claim in light of the facts of his case. See Ventura, 537
U.S. at 16-18; Madrigal, 716 F.3d at 509-10.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 11-73171