22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T475,MEMORANDUM Cesar Cruz-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Delgado v. Holder, 568 F.3d 863 , 874 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review, and remand. In denying Cruz-Mendez’s CAT claim, the BIA erred in failing to discuss the country conditions evidence in the record. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701 , 705 & n. 6 (9th Cir.2010) (“The government does not dispute that the BIA failed to mention the Country Report in its decision.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to do, so in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a2,

MEMORANDUM

Cesar Cruz-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Delgado v. Holder, 568 F.3d 863 , 874 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review, and remand.

In denying Cruz-Mendez’s CAT claim, the BIA erred in failing to discuss the country conditions evidence in the record. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701 , 705 & n. 6 (9th Cir.2010) (“The government does not dispute that the BIA failed to mention the Country Report in its decision.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to do, so in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.