Carlos Alfredo Andrade- Pocasangre v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALFREDO ANDRADE-
POCASANGRE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73252
Agency No. A029-255-476
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Alfredo Andrade-Pocasangre, a native of Guatemala and dual citizen
of Guatemala and El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
FILED
JUN 29 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 --

In denying Andrade-Pocasangre’s second motion to reopen as untimely and
number-barred, the BIA found that Andrade-Pocasangre failed to establish
membership in a particular social group and failed to establish changed
circumstances arising in his country of nationality or in the country to which
removal has been ordered. 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) (recognizing that witnesses who testify against gang
members may constitute a particular social group), 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). In addition, the BIA did not
have the benefit of this court’s decision in Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034 (9th
Cir. 2014) (holding that the BIA was required to consider changed country
conditions as they related to a change in petitioner’s personal circumstances).
Thus, we remand Andrade-Pocasangre’s motion to reopen for the agency to
determine the effect, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,
16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Andrade-
Pocasangre’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 11-73252

-- 2 of 2 --