Santos Echeverria v. Loretta E. Lynch , 610 F. App'x 677 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SANTOS NELSON ECHEVERRIA, AKA No. 13-72554
Santos Nelson Echevaria,
Agency No. A088-928-365
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Santos Nelson Echeverria, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we
remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Echeverria failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the
instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See id. at 1073. We reject Echeverria’s contention that the agency’s
consideration of his CAT claim was insufficient. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
In denying asylum and withholding of removal, however, the agency found
Echeverria failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this
case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d
1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), or
the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and
Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we remand Echeverria’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these
2 13-72554
decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of
this remand, we do not reach Echeverria’s remaining challenges to the agency’s
denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 13-72554