FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ARMANDO OSORIO- No. 12-70800
GUTIERREZ, AKA Luis Armando
Osorio, Agency No. A095-730-180
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Luis Armando Osorio-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
*
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).
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part
and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Osorio-Gutierrez does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he abandoned
any challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum as time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are
deemed waived).
In denying Osorio-Gutierrez’s withholding of removal claim, the agency
found Osorio-Gutierrez failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood 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 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 Osorio-Gutierrez’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).
2 12-70800
Finally, in denying Osorio-Gutierrez’s CAT claim, the agency did not
consider the police’s reaction to Osorio-Gutierrez’s experience or the risk to
Osorio-Gutierrez in light of the subsequent harm to his nephews. See Eneh v.
Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency erred by failing to analyze
potentially dispositive evidence). Thus, we remand Osorio-Gutierrez’s CAT claim
for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Ventura, 537 U.S. at
16-18.
The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 12-70800