FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 20 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO JOSE ZITA-MARTINEZ, AKA No. 19-70860
Pedro Zita-Martinez; et al.,
Agency Nos. A098-958-422
Petitioners, A098-958-424
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 8, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Jose Zita-Martinez and Juan Carlos Zita-Martinez,1 natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1
Petitioners’ sister, Juana Veronica (A098-958-423), is not included in this
disposition. She was severed from the proceedings based on her U-1 Visa status.
(“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, grant the petition, and remand.
1. An applicant for asylum must establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution that has a nexus to one of five protected
grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group
(“PSG”), or political opinion. Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th
Cir. 2010) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). The protected ground must be “at
least one central reason for persecuting the applicant,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i),
but “persecution may be caused by more than one central reason, and an asylum
applicant need not prove which reason was dominant,” Parussimova v. Mukasey,
555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009). A “mixed motive” analysis is appropriate
where the victim can establish that the alleged persecutor was motivated at least in
part by a protected ground. Baghdasaryan, 592 F.3d at 1023.
The BIA did not disturb the Immigration Judge’s finding that Petitioners
were credible. We thus accept Petitioners’ testimony as true. Kalubi v. Ashcroft,
364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA assumed the existence of the family
as a protected social group, but incorrectly concluded that membership in the
family was not “one central reason” for the threats against Petitioners. The record
compels the conclusion that family membership was at least one central reason for
2
Petitioners’ persecution. The MS-13 gang initially extorted Petitioners’ older
brother, Juan Bautista, who was in practical effect Petitioners’ protector and
surrogate parent. After Juan Bautista refused gang members’ demands for
payment, the remaining family members, including Petitioners, were threatened
with death “one by one.” We remand to the BIA to determine whether Petitioners’
proposed family PSG is cognizable.
2. The BIA analyzed Petitioners’ withholding of removal claim under the
standard that preceded this court’s decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846
F.3d 351, 358–60 (9th Cir. 2017), which articulated the “a reason” standard
applicable in withholding cases. The government concedes that a remand is
required so that the BIA can apply Barajas-Romero. Our conclusion as to “one
central reason” with respect to asylum necessarily entails a conclusion that the “a
reason” standard has been satisfied. See id. at 360. On remand, the agency should
consider whether, under Barajas-Romero, Petitioners are entitled to withholding of
removal.
Petition for review GRANTED and REMANDED.
3