FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARTINEZ-ARGUETA, No. 13-72810
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-457-716
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Martinez-Argueta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s 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 pursuant to 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 and grant in part the petition for
review, and we remand.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Martinez-Argueta applied
for asylum within a reasonable time period after the termination of his temporary
protected status. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir. 2008)
(364-day delay in filing asylum application after non-immigrant status expired was
not a reasonable period of time). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Martinez-
Argueta’s CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of
the El Salvadoran government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
In denying withholding of removal for lack of nexus to a protected ground,
the BIA did not address the social group argument in Martinez-Argueta’s 2012
brief, and we have no agency decision to review on that claim. We therefore grant
the petition as to withholding of removal, and remand for the agency to address the
social group argument in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,
16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
2 13-72810
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 13-72810