Court Opinion

ID: 2804256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-05-28 21:03:18.20004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:48:19.417662
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          MAY 28 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

WILMER EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ,                        No. 12-73666

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A099-832-209

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted May 13, 2015**

Before:        LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Wilmer Eduardo Rodriguez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

          *
             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).
(“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.

      The record does not compel the finding that Rodriguez established changed

or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See

8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088,

1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Rodriguez’s

asylum claim.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rodriguez’s CAT claim

because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See

Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

      In denying Rodriguez’s withholding of removal claim, the agency found he

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

                                           2                                    12-73666
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 Rodriguez’s

withholding of removal claim to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions.

See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this

remand, we do not reach Rodriguez’s due process claim.

      Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

                                          3                                    12-73666