FILED
1NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLORINDO CRUZ-PABLO, No. 12-73506
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-852-933
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Florindo Cruz-Pablo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and grant
in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Cruz-Pablo does not raise any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of
his asylum or CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th
Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned.”). Thus, we deny the petition as to these claims.
With respect to withholding of removal, the agency found Cruz-Pablo failed
to demonstrate the harm he fears is 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 Cruz-Pablo’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.
2 12-73506