Francisco Mendoz Raymundo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO MENDOZ RAYMUNDO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-74247
Agency No. A029-186-578
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 14, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and EATON,** Judge.
Petitioner Francisco Mendoz Raymundo petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We grant the petition and remand.
1. The BIA concluded that Raymundo failed to show that he was part of a
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
cognizable social group because it found that the case that he relied on,
Tchoukhrova v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005), vacated sub nom.
Gonzales v. Tchoukhrova, 549 U.S. 801 (2006), “is not good law.” The BIA’s
failure to conduct any further analysis was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme
Court vacated Tchoukhrova for reasons completely unrelated to the definition of
particular social groups for individuals seeking asylum and related relief. See
Tchoukhrova, 549 U.S. 801; Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006). We
therefore grant the petition and remand for the BIA to analyze this issue in the first
instance in light of Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944–45 (9th Cir. 2007) and
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1084–85, 1087–91 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc). See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2002)
(remanding motion to reopen, in part, because the BIA failed “to engage in any
substantive analysis” of the petitioners’ claim).
2. The BIA also failed to adequately analyze, and in one instance misstated,
the record evidence in concluding that Raymundo failed to submit credible, direct,
and specific evidence to support his fear of persecution. For example, the State
Department’s 2010 Country Report on Mexico found “widespread human rights
abuses in mental institutions across the country,” including “the use of physical
and chemical restraints and lobotomies on patients.” Yet the BIA erroneously
characterized Raymundo’s evidence as “limited” to “reports on conditions of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
general violence in Mexico and inferior resources for treatment of mental health.”
Because “the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned
explanation for its actions,” Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.
2005), we remand for the BIA to engage in this analysis in the first instance.
PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --