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NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2014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
CARLOS ARNOLDO CONDE No. 12-72467
QUEVEDO; AMALIA CONDE
TURCIOS, Agency Nos. A089-853-122
A089-853-120
Petitioners,
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.
Carlos Arnoldo Conde Quevedo and Amalia Conde Turcios, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
*
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).
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“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.
Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s finding that their asylum
applications were untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to their asylum claims.
In analyzing petitioners’ claims, the BIA assumed Conde Quevedo was a
credible witness. We reject petitioners’ contentions that the BIA erred by not
analyzing the IJ’s credibility finding further.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured at the
instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. Thus, we deny the petition as to their CAT claims.
In denying petitioners’ withholding of removal claims, the agency found
petitioners 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
2 12-72467
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). Thus, we remand petitioners’
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). In light of this
remand, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining challenges to the agency’s denial
of their withholding of removal claims at this time.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 12-72467