
    William Efrain CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72253.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2014.
    William Efrain Campos, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Stephen Elliott, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Efrain Campos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tapia Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir.2013). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s conclusion that the gang’s extortion of Campos was based on criminal intent and not his homosexuality. See id. at 505-06 (record compelled conclusion petitioner’s status was “one central reason” for mistreatment). Further, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s conclusion that Campos did not establish that the government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to control his persecutors. See Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1198-1201 (9th Cir.2000) .(record compelled conclusion government was unable or unwilling to control mistreatment). Thus, we grant the petition for review, and we remand Campos’s asylum claim for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     