Olivia Rivas-De Perez v. Loretta E. Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
OLIVIA VICKY RIVAS-DE PEREZ; No. 10-73165
EDWARD ALEXANDER PEREZ-
RIVAS, Agency Nos. A098-044-783
A098-044-784
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.
Olivia Vicky Rivas-De Perez and Edward Alexander Perez-Rivas, natives
and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
*
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).
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.
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 of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See id. 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
(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)
2 10-73165
(per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
challenges to the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 10-73165