Hector Alexander Umanzor- Aguilar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR ALEXANDER UMANZOR-
AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70909
Agency No. A094-770-546
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hector Alexander Umanzor-Aguilar, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
DEC 8 2014
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 3 --

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tapia
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We grant the petition for
review and remand.
In denying Umanzor-Aguilar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,
the agency found Umanzor-Aguilar failed to establish past persecution or a fear of
future persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued
their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in
Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010), 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 Umanzor-Aguilar’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these
decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of
this remand, we do not reach Umanzor-Aguilar’s remaining challenges to the
agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims at this time.
With respect to CAT relief, the record shows that the police refused to take a
report of the attack on Umanzor-Aguilar without the gang members’ names. The
10-70909 2

-- 2 of 3 --

IJ found that the police “were not able to really do much about” the attack and that
the evidence did not show the government was “aware of the activity.” These
findings are not supported. See Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.
1999) (agency errs when it distorts or disregards important aspects of claim); Tapia
Madrigal, 716 F.3d at 509 (petitioner need only show that “a public official”
would acquiesce in his torture). Thus, we also remand Umanzor-Aguilar’s CAT
claim for reconsideration of whether it is more likely than not he will be tortured
upon return to El Salvador in light of the police refusal to take the report. See
Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16-18; Tapia Madrigal, 716 F.3d at 510.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
10-70909 3

-- 3 of 3 --