FRANCISCO VILLA-VARGAS V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73447 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 22 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO EMMANUELLE VILLAVARGAS, AKA Francisco Emmanuelle Villa, No. 13-73447 Agency No. A205-317-761 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Francisco Emmanuelle Villa-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 * 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). 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 grant the petition for review and remand. In denying Villa-Vargas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found he failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The BIA did not discuss the impact, if any, of this court’s recent 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). Further, when the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in 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 Villa-Vargas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 13-73447

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.