
    Alfredo Pintor IZQUIERDO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71219
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 21, 2016
    Ian Silverberg, Law Offices of Ian Sil-verberg, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
    Brooke Maurer, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Pintor Izquierdo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for 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 agency’s factual findings and review de novo conclusions of law. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

The agency determined that Pintor Izquierdo’s past harm rose to the level of persecution and that the government was unwilling to control his persecutors, but that he failed to show that he was harmed on account of his sexual orientation. The record compels the conclusion that one central reason Pintor Izquierdo was harmed was on account of his sexual orientation. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “persecution may be caused by more than one central reason”). Pintor Izquierdo is entitled to a presumption that his life or freedom would be threatened if returned to Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to his withholding of removal claim and remand for the agency to address in the first instance whether the government has rebutted this presumption. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Further, in denying Pintor Izquierdo’s CAT claim, the agency found that Pintor Izquierdo failed to establish that he could not relocate. When the BIA and IJ issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (applicants need not demonstrate that relocation would be impossible). Thus, we also grant the petition as to Pintor Izquierdo’s CAT claim, and remand for the agency to determine the impact, if any, of this decision. See Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353.

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.
     