Gabriel Bustos Penaloza v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL BUSTOS PENALOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71416
Agency No. A209-134-905
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Bustos Penaloza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 3 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71416
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for review and remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s determination that
Bustos Penaloza failed to establish he was or would be harmed on account of a
protected ground in Mexico, including his actual or imputed political opinion. See
Song v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 837, 841-43 (9th Cir. 2017) (record compelled finding
that one central reason for petitioner’s mistreatment was his imputed political
opinion); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (“‘[A]
reason’ is a less demanding standard than ‘one central reason.’”). Thus, we grant
the petition for review as to Bustos Penaloza’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
We do not reach Bustos Penaloza’s contention regarding whether the
Mexican government is unwilling or unable to control his persecutors. See Recinos
De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We may affirm the
[agency] only on grounds set forth in the opinion under review.”).
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --