Meybel Rocio MOREIRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 598 F. App'x 525

MEMORANDUM Meybel Rocio Moreira, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Moreira’s CAT claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See id. at 1073. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Moreira’s CAT claim. In denying Moreira’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found she 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), Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.2014), and Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.2010), 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 Moreira’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, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of this remand, we do not reach Moreira’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.