Santiago Amaya-Cruz v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO AMAYA-CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70485
Agency No. A099-479-600
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Amaya-Cruz, 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 asylum,
FILED
OCT 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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). Thus, we reject Amaya-
Cruz’s request for oral argument.
1 12-70485

-- 1 of 3 --

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. See 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
Amaya-Cruz failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See id. at 1073. We reject Amaya-Cruz’s contention that the agency’s
analysis was inadequate and incomplete. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
990 (9th Cir. 2010).
In denying Amaya-Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the
agency found Amaya-Cruz failed to establish past persecution or a well founded
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-,
2 12-70485

-- 2 of 3 --

26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA
2014). Thus, we remand Amaya-Cruz’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 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach
Amaya-Cruz’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
Finally, we deny Amaya-Cruz’s motion to remand to pursue special rule
cancellation of removal under NACARA.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 12-70485

-- 3 of 3 --