N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LUIS ARM ANDO OSORIOGUTIER REZ, AKA Luis Armando Osorio, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-70800 Age n c y No. A095-730-180 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2014 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s . Luis Arm ando Osorio-Gutierre z , a native an d c itiz e n of Gua te m a l a , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for 

# FIL ED D EC 16 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny in pa rt and gra nt in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w, a nd we re m and. Osorio-Gutie rre z doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s finding tha t he a ba ndone d any c ha lle nge to the IJ’ s de nia l of a sy lum a s tim e -barre d . Se eMartine z-Se r rano v . IN S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not supporte d by argum e nt a

re de e m e d wa ive d). In de ny ing Osorio-Gutierre z ’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im , the a ge nc y found Osorio-Gutierre z fa ile d to e sta blish pa st pe rse c ution or a like lihood of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. W

he n the IJ a

nd B IA issue d the ir de c isions in this c a se the y did not ha

ve the be ne fit of this c ourt’ s de c isions in He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ), C ordoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 2013), a n d Pirir-Boc v . Holde r , 750 F.3d 1077 (9th C ir. 2014), or theB IA’ s de c isions in Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227 (B IA 2014), a

nd Matte r of W

-G-R- , 26 I. & N. De c . 208 (B IA 2014). Thus, we re m and Osorio-Gutierre z ’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im

to de t e rm ine the im

pa c t, if a ny , of the se de c isions. Se e IN S v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ).

2 1 2 - 7 0 8 0 0Fina lly , in de ny ing Osorio-Gutierre z ’ s C AT c la i m , the a ge nc y did not

c onside r the polic e ’ s re a c t ion to Osorio-Gutie rre z ’ s e xpe rie nc e or the risk to Osorio-Gutie rre z in light of the subse que nt ha

rm to his ne p he ws. Se eEne h v . Holde r , 601 F.3d 943, 948-49 (9th C ir. 2010) (a ge nc y e rre d by fa iling to a

na ly z e pote ntia l ly

dispositive

e vide nc e ). Thus, we re m and Osorio-Gutierre z ’ s C AT c la im for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition. Se eVe ntura , 537 U.S. a t 16-18. The pa

rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts for this petition for re vie w. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; RE M A NDE D.

3 1 2 - 7 0 8 0 0