Zelalem Tegeneghe v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ZELALEM TEGENEGHE, No. 09-72731
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-923-596
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Zelalem Tegeneghe, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence.
Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for
review and remand.
The IJ found Tegeneghe failed to provide any country conditions evidence
that shows individuals who are half-Ethiopian are persecuted in Eritrea. This is
belied by the record; for example, the record includes a report from Amnesty
International specifically addressing persecution of such individuals. In addition,
substantial evidence does not support the agency’s conclusion that Tegeneghe’s
half-Ethiopian ethnicity was not “at least one central reason” for the harms he
experienced. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); cf. Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 742 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding “that the utterance of an ethnic slur, standing
alone,” does not constitute one central reason for an attack). Accordingly, we grant
the petition with respect to Tegeneghe’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
In light of our above conclusions we also remand Tegeneghe’s CAT claim.
See Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 937 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.
2