Claudia Torres v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDIA TORRES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70682
Agency No. A096-158-967
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Claudia Torres, 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 withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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.
Torres does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by
argument are deemed waived).
In denying Torres’s withholding of removal claim on nexus grounds, the
BIA rejected Torres’ proposed social group. When the IJ and BIA issued their
decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of either this court’s 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), 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). In light of these intervening decisions, and our intervening decision in
Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir. 2010), we grant Torres’s petition
for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Finally, we deny as moot Torres’s motion to remand and motion to hold case
in abeyance.
09-70682 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
09-70682 3

-- 3 of 3 --