CLAUDIA TORRES V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-70682 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 16 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAUDIA TORRES, No. 09-70682 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-158-967 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2014** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Claudia Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have * 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). 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. Torres does not challenge the agency s denial of CAT relief. See MartinezSerrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). In denying Torres s withholding of removal claim on nexus grounds, the BIA rejected Torres proposed social group. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of either this court s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), and Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), or the BIA s decisions in Matter of M-EV-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). In light of these intervening decisions, and our intervening decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir. 2010), we grant Torres s petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). Finally, we deny as moot Torres s motion to remand and motion to hold case in abeyance. 2 09-70682 Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 3 09-70682

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.