Santos Mendoza-Mejano v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTOS MELVIN MENDOZA- No. 10-73441
MEJANO,
Agency No. A098-434-275
Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 10, 2015**

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Santos Melvin Mendoza-Mejano, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

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 protection under the

*
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).
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.

Mendoza-Mejano does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he abandoned

his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)

(issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition

for review as to his CAT claim.

In denying Mendoza-Mejano’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,

the agency found he 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 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 Mendoza-Mejano’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). In light of this remand, we do not reach Mendoza-

Mejano’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding

of removal.

2 10-73441
 Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 10-73441