Dixi Aleyda Velasquez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIXI ALEYDA VELASQUEZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-665
Agency Nos.
A212-988-616
A212-988-614
A212-988-615
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Dixi Aleyda Velasquez and her two children, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-665
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.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We grant in part,
deny in part, and remand the petition for review.
The BIA denied asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that
petitioners failed to establish a nexus to their family-based particular social group.
Substantial evidence does not support that determination. See, e.g., Parada v.
Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910-11 (9th Cir. 2018) (evidence that applicant was
persecuted in retaliation for his brother’s conduct established nexus to family as a
protected ground); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (an
asylum applicant establishes that a protected ground was “one central reason” for
persecution where the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant absent that
motive); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017)
(the less demanding “a reason” standard applies to withholding of removal claims).
Additionally, the BIA stated it found no clear error in the IJ’s finding that
petitioners did not establish that any past or feared harm was or would be on
account of a protected ground. Subsequent to the BIA’s decision and the briefing
in this case, this court held “the BIA must review de novo whether a persecutor’s
motives meet the nexus legal standards.” Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th
544, 552 (9th Cir. 2023).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-665
Thus, we grant the petition for review in part and remand petitioners’ asylum
and withholding of removal claims to the agency for any necessary further
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-
18 (2002) (per curiam).
Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT protection,
we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --