Freddy Martin Davila 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).
The Honorable James P. Jones, District Judge for the U.S. District***
Court for Western Virginia, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDDY MARTIN DAVILA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71805
Agency No. A078-054-504
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.***
Freddy Martin Davila, a legal permanent resident of the Untied States and
native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
FILED
DEC 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The government failed to respond to this argument.1
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order rejecting his claim for protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence findings of fact.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for
review and remand.
We remand to the BIA because we cannot conduct a meaningful review of
the BIA’s decision on the issue of whether the Nicaraguan government acquiesces
in acts of torture, where the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation of its
decision. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We
have long held that the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned
explanation for its actions.”). Davila asserts that the BIA failed to provide a
“reasoned explanation” for denying his claim under the theory that the Nicaraguan
government acquiesces in torture. The BIA denied Davila’s CAT claim by issuing1
a general statement unsupported by any reasoning that Nicaragua does not consent
to torture. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he
BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a [party].”). We therefore instruct
the BIA on remand to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision on Davila’s
CAT claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

We grant the petition for review, and remand to the BIA to provide a
reasoned explanation for its decision on Davila’s CAT claim.
Petition GRANTED; REMANDED for further proceedings.

-- 3 of 3 --