Alfonso Enrique Mercado v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 05, 2007
No. 06-15277 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
Agency Nos. A98-394-081
A98-394-497
ALFONSO ENRIQUE MERCADO,
ANDRES ALFONSO MERCADO,
ALEJANDRA MARGARITA MERCADO,
ANA CLEOTILDE FANDINO,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(December 5, 2007)
Before DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER,* District
Judge.
_________________________
*Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama,
sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
The petitioners, Alfonso Enrique Mercado (“Mercado”), his wife, Anna
Cleotilde Fandino (“Anna”), and their two children, Andres Alfonso Mercado
(“Andres”), and Alejandra Margarita Mercado (“Alejandra”), pro se, seek review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision, affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for asylum and
withholding of removal.
At the time the IJ and BIA considered this case, they did not have the benefit
of our recent decision in Sanchez Jimenez v. United States Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d
1223 (11th Cir. 2007). In that case we held that “[o]ne of the five grounds need
not be the only motivation for persecution. Rather . . . an applicant can establish
eligibility for asylum so long as he can show that the persecution is, at least in
part, motivated by a protected ground.” Id. at 1232 (quotation omitted).
Since the record here demonstrates that part of the first incident (the beating
after learning of Mercado’s political leanings) and part of the second incident (the
threat of double sanctions) were motivated by Mercado’s political beliefs (a
protected ground), we conclude that the IJ erred in finding that none of the
incidents were “on account of” a protected ground.
Accordingly, after reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and
having the benefit of oral argument, we vacate the BIA’s decision and remand this
2
case for the BIA to reconsider petitioners’ petition based on our decision in
Sanchez.1
VACATED and REMANDED.
1
On remand, the BIA should also consider our decision in Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762(11th Cir. 2007).
3