FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGEL ALVAREZ-LEON, No. 12-73812
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-091-165
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.
Angel Alvarez-Leon, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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, dismiss in part, and grant in part the
petition for review, and we remand.
The BIA correctly found Alvarez-Leon’s asylum claim was time-barred.
The record does not support Alvarez-Leon’s contention that the BIA failed to
address changed circumstances, including the issues he raised in his brief to the
BIA. We lack jurisdiction to review Alvarez-Leon’s contention that the IJ failed to
consider changed circumstances because he did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Alvarez-Leon failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at
the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
However, in denying Alvarez-Leon’s withholding of removal claim, the
agency found Alvarez-Leon failed to establish 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
2 12-73812
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 Alvarez-
Leon’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). In light of
this remand, we do not reach Alvarez-Leon’s remaining challenges to the agency’s
denial of his withholding of removal claim at this time.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part;
GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
3 12-73812