Miranda-Villamil
v.
Holder

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITApr 27, 2015
No. 10-72176 (9th Cir. 2015)
No. 10-72176600 Fed. Appx. 560

No. 10-72176

04-27-2015

YOLANDA ELIZABETH MIRANDA-VILLAMIL; BRYAN STANLEY ANGEL-MIRANDA, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency Nos. A094-927-653 A094-927-652 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Yolanda Elizabeth Miranda-Villamil and Bryan Stanley Angel-Miranda, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications 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.

We do not consider the articles attached to petitioners' opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court's review is limited to the administrative record).

Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence, including the awareness and willful blindness, of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

In denying petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found petitioners 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 petitioners' 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 (2002) (per curiam).

The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.