Santos Nelson ECHEVERRIA, aka Santos Nelson Echevaria, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent, 611 F. App'x 424

MEMORANDUM Santos Nelson Echeverría, 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 (“U”) decision denying his 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 CAT relief because Echever-ría failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See id. at 1073. We reject Echeverria’s contention that the agency’s consideration of his CAT claim was insufficient. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). In denying asylum and withholding of removal, however, the agency found Echeverría 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 Echeverria’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 Echeverria’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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.