Edgar Cordoba v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR RENE CORDOBA , No. 08-74384 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A096-085-156

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

ANTONIO MEDINA GONZALEZ, No. 10-73112 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A022-997-885

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, OPINION Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 11, 2013—Pasadena, California

Filed August 13, 2013 CORDOBA V . HOLDER

Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, and Jack Zouhary, District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Zouhary

SUMMARY**

Immigration

The panel granted the petitions for review of Edgar Rene Cordoba and Antonio Medina-Gonzalez from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions denying asylum and withholding of removal on the grounds that their status as landowners did not qualify as a particular social group within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

The panel remanded…

These cases, consolidated for purposes of disposition, both present the question of whether landownership may form the basis for membership in a particular social group for purposes of eligibility for asylum. Because the agency did not have the benefit of our recent en banc decision in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder when it adjudicated petitioners’ claims, we grant the petitions for review and remand for the BIA to reconsider its determinations.

I.

The Attorney General may, in his discretion, grant asylum to applicants determined to be refugees within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1). An individual qualifies as a refugee when he is “unable or unwilling to return to [his last country of residence] ... because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A); see Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir.2000). These cases involve two individuals whose asylum applications were denied because the BIA held that the particular social groups in which they…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Respectfully, I concur with Section II and dissent from Section III.

I concur in the judgment of the asylum claims but write separately to clarify that remand is appropriate because the BIA decisions in these cases came down before the recent en banc opinion in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013). The BIA should re-examine the record to determine whether there was “evidence that members of the proposed group would be perceived as a group by society.” Id. at 1088-89 . Specifically, was social visibility demonstrated through the perceptions of the persecutors? Id. at 1089-90 .

A remand for this limited purpose will enable the parties and the BIA to address these questions in the first instance. Comments by the majority, purporting to modify Petitioners’ proposed social groups or to steer the IJ or BIA to a particular conclusion, defeat the purpose of the limited remand. For these reasons, I concur separately with Section II.

I dissent from Section III, which addresses Medina-Gonzalez’s CAT claim. I believe the BIA’s denial of this claim, as with the denial of Cordoba’s CAT claim, is supported by substantial evidence…