FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ULISES GUARDADO ORDONEZ, No. 12-70561
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-172-632
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Ulises Guardado Ordonez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
*
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).
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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), and for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023
(9th Cir. 2007). 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
Guardado Ordonez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Silaya
v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, as to CAT relief, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guardado Ordonez’s motion to remand.
See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2002) (evidence in support of
his motion did not demonstrate it is more likely than not petitioner would be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned).
However, in denying Guardado Ordonez’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims, the agency found Guardado Ordonez failed to establish 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.
2 11-74016
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 Guardado Ordonez’s 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 (2002) (per curiam). Apart from our conclusion regarding the BIA’s denial
of Guardado Ordonez’s CAT claim, we do not reach Guardado Ordonez’s
remaining challenges to the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand at this time.
Further, we deny, as moot, the government’s request to submit a
supplemental brief.
The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 11-74016