MERCEDES SANCHEZ DE FRANCO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71228 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAY 23 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MERCEDES DE JESUS SANCHEZ DE FRANCO; et al., No. 11-71228 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A098-589-371 A098-589-372 A098-589-373 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Mercedes de Jesus Sanchez de Franco and her children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings. SantosLemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand. Substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT relief because petitioners did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not they will be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1196-97 (9th Cir. 2003). In denying petitioners asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA found they 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 either this court s decisions in HenriquezRivas 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-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we grant the petition as to petitioners asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 2 11-71228

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.