Maria Centeno-Munguia v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA CENTENO-MUNGUIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71747
Agency No. A094-895-561
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Centeno-Munguia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of
FILED
JAN 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 --

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for
review and remand.
In denying Centeno-Munguia’s withholding of removal claim, the agency
found Centeno-Munguia failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood 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
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 Centeno-Munguia’s withholding of removal claim to determine the impact,
if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per
curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
10-71747 2

-- 2 of 2 --