Jose Adan Lobos; Elmer Lobos- Gonzalez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ADAN LOBOS; ELMER LOBOS-
GONZALEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71765
Agency Nos. A099-537-814
A099-537-807
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Adan Lobos and Elmer Lobos-Gonzalez, 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
FILED
DEC 18 2014
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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in
part the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of petitioners’ CAT claims because
they failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
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).
10-71765 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
10-71765 3

-- 3 of 3 --