NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 04 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICARDO ARTURO QUELE- Nos. 09-72768 and 11-72430
NAVARRO,
Agency No. A094-798-550
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2013
Submission Withdrawn November 5, 2013
Resubmitted January 9, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ricardo Arturo Quele-Navarro appeals the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) (1) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial
of his asylum, withholding of relief, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)
claims; and (2) denial of his motion to reopen with the BIA.
Since the BIA denied petitioner’s claims, the law governing the “particular
social group” analysis has changed. See, e.g., Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (B.I.A.
2014); Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (B.I.A. 2014). We therefore
remand to the BIA to consider the effects, if any, of these recent decisions on the
merits of petitioner’s claims for relief based on membership in a particular social
group.
The BIA’s other conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. We
agree with the BIA’s determination that petitioner’s claim of persecution based on
his political opinion or imputed political opinion is foreclosed by our precedents.
See, e.g., Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2009), overruled on
other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d at 1093-94. We also agree with the
BIA’s denial of petitioner’s CAT claim, as its determination that petitioner did not
meet his burden of demonstrating that he was more likely than not to be tortured
upon returning to El Salvador was supported by substantial evidence.
In light of our decision to remand to the BIA, we do not reach petitioner’s
claim that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen based on new evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.
-2-