NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RUBEN DARIO CHAVEZ, No. 11-72877
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-351-397
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Dario Chavez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Chavez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
In denying Chavez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA
found Chavez failed to articulate a cognizable particular social group. 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). In light of these intervening decisions, we grant Chavez’s petition for
review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
2 11-72877
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part.
REMANDED.
3 11-72877