FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SILVIO ORELLANA-FRANCO, No. 12-71452
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-309-210
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Silvio Orellana-Franco, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of a 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
*
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).
Torture (“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.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief, because Orellana-
Franco has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya
v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
The agency also found Orellana-Franco 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 Orellana-Franco’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).
2 12-71452
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 12-71452