Case Name: Elmer Efrain Moran ROMERO, AKA Elmer Moran, AKA Elmer Efrain Ramirez Romero, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 691 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 10-70807
Parties: Elmer Efrain Moran ROMERO, AKA Elmer Moran, AKA Elmer Efrain Ramirez Romero, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 491–493

Head Matter:
Elmer Efrain Moran ROMERO, AKA Elmer Moran, AKA Elmer Efrain Ramirez Romero, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70807
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2017
Filed May 30, 2017
Alejandro Garcia, Attorney, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner
OIL, Tim Ramnitz, Trial Attorney, Jennifer A. Singer, John D. Williams, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 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
Elmer Efrain Moran Romero, 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 ("U") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny in part, dismiss in part, and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Moran Romero applied for asylum within a reasonable time of any changed or extraordinary circumstances as to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(4), (5); Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1181-82. We reject his contention that the BIA violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Moran Romero's asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Moran Romero failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of El Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to CAT relief.
As to Moran Romero's withholding of removal claim, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions regarding an imputed political opinion because he did not raise them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In denying his withholding of removal claim, the agency found Moran Romero failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. However, 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), Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), or the BIA's decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 261. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we remand Moran Romero's withholding of removal claim 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).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.