BYRON F. ESPANA-OCHOA and WILLIAN Y. ESPANA-OCHOA, AKA William Y. Espana-Ochoa v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BYRON F. ESPANA-OCHOA and
WILLIAN Y. ESPANA-OCHOA, AKA
William Y. Espana-Ochoa,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73844
Agency Nos. A095-308-787
A097-873-061
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Byron F. Espana-Ochoa and Willian Y. Espana-Ochoa, natives and citizens
of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
FILED
APR 16 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

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.
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 agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured by the
Guatemalan government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, petitioners’ CAT claims fail.
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
10-73844 2

-- 2 of 3 --

impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)
(per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
10-73844 3

-- 3 of 3 --