
    Mario Gustavo VEGA-ISLA, Petitioner, v. Erie H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72484.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    April 3, 2013.
    Gerald Kenneth Roberts, Law Offices of Gerald K. Roberts, Pittsburg, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lindsay Corliss, OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, 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, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Gustavo Vega-Isla, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that the persecution Vega-Isla suffered was based solely on criminal extortion of merchandise. Vega-Isla’s asylum application statement and credible testimony established his actual or imputed political opinion was “at least one central reason” for the confrontations, death threats, robbery, assault, pursuit, and continuing interest from Shining Path guerrillas. See Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1017, 1019 (9th Cir.2011) (“[ejven though there might have been multiple motivations for the [mistreatment of petitioner] his credible testimony compels a finding that one of the central reasons for his alleged persecution was because of a protected ground”).

Thus, we grant Vega-Isla’s petition for review, and remand his withholding of removal claim to the BIA 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     