Celina Carmen Duran v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CELINA CARMEN DURAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70911
Agency No. A099-580-002
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Celina Carmen Duran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of
FILED
AUG 03 2015
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 2 --

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for
review and remand.
In denying Duran’s withholding of removal claim, the BIA found Duran
failed to establish a nexus between the mistreatment she suffered or fears and a
protected ground. As the government concedes, when the BIA issued its decision
in this case it did not have the benefit 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 Duran’s
withholding of removal claim to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions.
See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
11-70911 2

-- 2 of 2 --