Opinion
No. 13-74064
02-21-2019
ROGELIO MENDOZA-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A087-595-662 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rogelio Mendoza-Cruz, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition as to the asylum and CAT claims, grant the petition as to the withholding of removal claim, and remand.
Even if his asylum application was timely, substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Mendoza-Cruz failed to establish that his family membership was "at least one central reason" for his alleged persecution. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining "one central reason" standard). Thus, we deny his petition as to asylum.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Mendoza-Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by the government of Mexico, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture). Thus, we deny his petition as to CAT.
As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court's decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356-60 (9th Cir. 2017), when it issued its order. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Mendoza-Cruz's withholding of removal claim to the BIA to determine the impact of this decision. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 360 ("'[A] reason' is a less demanding standard than 'one central reason.'").
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED.