
    Freddy Martin DAVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71805.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 27, 2011.
    Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Manuel Palau, 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: PREGERSON and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable James P. Jones, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Western Virginia, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Freddy Martin Davila, a legal permanent resident of the Untied States and native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order rejecting his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence findings of fact. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review and remand.

We remand to the BIA because we cannot conduct a meaningful review of the BIA’s decision on the issue of whether the Nicaraguan government acquiesces in acts of torture, where the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation of its decision. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005) (“We have long held that the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions.”). Davila asserts that the BIA failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” for denying his claim under the theory that the Nicaraguan government acquiesces in torture. The BIA denied Davila’s CAT claim by issuing a general statement unsupported by any reasoning that Nicaragua does not consent to torture. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a [party].”). We therefore instruct the BIA on remand to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision on Davila’s CAT claim.

We grant the petition for review, and remand to the BIA to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision on Davila’s CAT claim.

Petition GRANTED; REMANDED for further proceedings. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . The government failed to respond to this argument.
     