Edwin Midence-Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
EDWIN LEONARDO MIDENCE- No. 10-70389
MARTINEZ,
Agency No. A098-797-112
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 22, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Leonardo Midence-Martinez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum and
*
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).
withholding of removal, as well as its rejection of his motion to remand. We grant
the petition and remand.
Midence sought asylum and withholding of removal based on persecution on
account of his membership in a particular social group consisting of young men
from Honduras who refused to join gangs. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A),
1231(b)(3)(A). He also moved the BIA to remand his case to the Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) in light of the IJ’s failure to consider Midence’s membership in a
particular social group consisting of young, handicapped, Catholic men in
Honduras who refuse to join gangs.
The BIA reasoned that the particular social groups in which Midence
claimed membership are not cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality
Act. The BIA has since published two precedential opinions clarifying its
interpretation of the term “particular social group” in light of Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). See Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. &
N. Dec. 208 (2014); Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (2014). As in a
recent case, “we remand the petition to the BIA to consider [Midence’s] asylum
claim in light of those decisions. . . . We also advise the BIA to consider
2
[Midence’s] petition in light of Henriquez-Rivas . . . .” Pirir-Boc v. Holder, —
F.3d — , 2014 WL 1797657, at *5 (9th Cir. May 7, 2014).
GRANTED and REMANDED.
3