NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JORGE ARMANDO FONSECA- No. 11-71032
PADILLA,
Agency No. A042-788-321
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.
Jorge Armando Fonseca-Padilla, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s 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.
We reject Fonseca-Padilla’s contention that the BIA erred in not addressing
his contention regarding Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000). See INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are
not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results they reach.”).
The record does not compel the conclusion that the agency erred in its
determination that Fonseca-Padilla did not suffer past harm that rose to the level of
torture and failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he
is removed to Honduras. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055-56 (9th
Cir. 2006) (affirming agency’s determination that month-long detention and
multiple beatings by police did not rise to the level of torture). Accordingly,
Fonseca-Padilla’s CAT claim fails.
In denying Fonseca-Padilla’s withholding of removal claim, the agency
found Fonseca-Padilla failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their
2 11-71032
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 Fonseca-Padilla’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).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 11-71032