Yolanda Miranda-Villamil v. Loretta E. Lynch , 600 F. App'x 560 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOLANDA ELIZABETH MIRANDA- No. 10-72176
VILLAMIL; BRYAN STANLEY
ANGEL-MIRANDA, Agency Nos. A094-927-653
A094-927-652
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Yolanda Elizabeth Miranda-Villamil and Bryan Stanley Angel-Miranda,
natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
*
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).
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications 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
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.
We do not consider the articles attached to petitioners’ opening brief. See
Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is
limited to the administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence, including the awareness and willful
blindness, of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at
1073.
In denying petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the
agency found petitioners 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
2 10-72176
(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 petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the
impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)
(per curiam).
The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 10-72176