Case Name: Olivia Vicky RIVAS-DE PEREZ; Edward Alexander Perez-Rivas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-27
Citations: 600 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 10-73165
Parties: Olivia Vicky RIVAS-DE PEREZ; Edward Alexander Perez-Rivas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
Olivia Vicky RIVAS-DE PEREZ; Edward Alexander Perez-Rivas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73165.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015.
Filed April 27, 2015.
Susan Elizabeth Hill, Hill, Piibe & Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Puneet Cheema, Trial, Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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") 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 1078.
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, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.