Ariel Ramon Arauz; v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARIEL RAMON ARAUZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72937
Agency Nos. A096-356-298
A096-356-299
A096-356-300
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ariel Ramon Arauz and his family, natives and citizens of Nicaragua,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of an appeal
from an immigration judge’s order denying their request for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
FEB 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-72937 2
review for substantial evidence, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000),
and we grant the petition for review, and remand.
The agency found the harm Arauz alleged did not rise to the level of
persecution. This finding is not supported by substantial evidence because
Sandinistas kidnaped Arauz, invaded his family home several times, harassed his
family repeatedly, and closely confronted him with death threats. See Ruano v.
Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that threats,
accompanied by some form of confrontation or mistreatment, established past
persecution).
The agency also found Arauz did not establish a nexus between the
Sandinistas’ actions against him and a protected ground. Substantial evidence does
not support the agency’s finding that there was no nexus between the Sandinistas’
actions and a protected ground. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir.
2000) (applicant may establish eligibility for asylum relief by showing persecution
on account of a protected category).
Accordingly, we grant the 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --