NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELMER EFRAIN MORAN ROMERO, No. 10-70807
AKA Elmer Moran, AKA Elmer Efrain
Ramirez Romero, Agency No. A094-833-664
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Elmer Efrain Moran Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo claims of due process
violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny in part,
dismiss in part, and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Moran Romero applied for
asylum within a reasonable time of any changed or extraordinary circumstances as
to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4
(a)(4), (5); Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1181-82. We reject his contention that the BIA
violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to Moran Romero’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Moran Romero failed
to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of El
Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
CAT relief.
As to Moran Romero’s withholding of removal claim, we lack jurisdiction to
consider his contentions regarding an imputed political opinion because he did not
2 10-70807
raise them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004). In denying his withholding of removal claim, the agency found Moran
Romero failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. However, 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), Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750
F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), 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 Moran
Romero’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 DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 10-70807