598 F. App'x 531

Laura Ivette TOVAR-CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-70140.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2015.*

Filed March 18, 2015.

Laura Ivette Tovar-Camacho, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

OIL, David H. Wetmore, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

Laura Ivette Tovar-Camacho, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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. 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.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Tovar-Camacho failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.2011).

In denying Tovar-Camacho’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found she failed to establish the requisite nexus to a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the *532benefit 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 Tovar-Ca-macho’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, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach Tovar-Camacho’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of her asylum and withholding of removal claims.

The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

Tovar-Camacho v. Holder
598 F. App'x 531

Case Details

Name
Tovar-Camacho v. Holder
Decision Date
Mar 18, 2015
Citations

598 F. App'x 531

Jurisdiction
United States

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!