Mario Gustavo Vega-Isla 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIO GUSTAVO VEGA-ISLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72484
Agency No. A088-451-944
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mario Gustavo Vega-Isla, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
APR 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72484 2
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We grant the petition for review and remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that the
persecution Vega-Isla suffered was based solely on criminal extortion of
merchandise. Vega-Isla’s asylum application statement and credible testimony
established his actual or imputed political opinion was “at least one central reason”
for the confrontations, death threats, robbery, assault, pursuit, and continuing
interest from Shining Path guerrillas. See Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1017,
1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[e]ven though there might have been multiple motivations
for the [mistreatment of petitioner] his credible testimony compels a finding that
one of the central reasons for his alleged persecution was because of a protected
ground”).
Thus, we grant Vega-Isla’s petition for review, and remand his withholding
of removal claim to the BIA 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 --