HENRY MENDOZA ANGEL V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-72318 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 30 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HENRY MENDOZA ANGEL; ANA GEAN DE LA CRUZ, No. 12-72318 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A098-914-731 A098-914-733 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Henry Mendoza Angel and Ana Gean de la Cruz, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision * 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). denying their applications for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand. In denying petitioners’ asylum claims, the agency 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 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). Thus, we remand petitioners’ asylum claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of asylum at this time. Respondent’s motion to hold this case in abeyance is denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 12-72318

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.