NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERBER ORTIZ GONZALEZ, AKA Jesus No. 14-71680
Archila-Cisneros,
Agency No. A089-766-903
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Herber Ortiz Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ortiz Gonzalez’s
asylum claim because Ortiz Gonzalez failed to establish that a protected ground
was or would be one central reason for the harm he suffered and fears. See
Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 2016) (identifying three-factor
standard to determine whether retaliation for whistleblowing amounts to
persecution on account of a political opinion). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ortiz Gonzalez’s CAT
claim because he did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
As to Ortiz Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim, the BIA did not have
the benefit of Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (“one central
reason” standard applies to asylum but not withholding of removal), and denied
based on the “one central reason” standard. Thus, we grant the petition for review
and remand Ortiz Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim for reconsideration of
this claim consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18
(2002) (per curiam).
2 14-71680
We deny Ortiz Gonzalez’s request for a stay of proceedings (Docket Entry
No. 16).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; and
REMANDED.
3 14-71680