
    Juan ORTIZ-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73463.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 10, 2010.
    Rosario Maria Hernandez, Esquire, Robert W. Yarra A Professional Law Corporation, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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

Juan Ortiz-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings, Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 802 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review.

Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s conclusion that Ortiz-Ortiz failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground because his credible testimony and documentary evidence establish that he and his family were targeted by guerrillas because of their pro-government political opinion. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 804 (9th Cir.2004) (harm by guerrillas was punishment for alien’s pro-establishment political views).

Because Ortiz-Ortiz established a nexus to a protected ground, we remand 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), taking into consideration Ortiz-Ortiz’s age at the time of the past harms, see Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2007).

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.
     