NELSON NEFTALI CHAVARIA, AKA Nelson Neftali Chavarria Dominguez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON NEFTALI CHAVARIA, AKA
Nelson Neftali Chavarria Dominguez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70237
Agency No. A095-020-408
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Neftali Chavaria, 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,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 24 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 --

(“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
Chavaria failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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). The record does not support
Chavaria’s contention that the agency failed to consider the country conditions
evidence.
In denying Chavaria’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the
agency found he failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution
on account of a protected ground. When the BIA and IJ issued their decisions in
this case, they did not have the benefit of either 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. HolderPirir-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 Chavaria’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to
13-70237 2

-- 2 of 3 --

determine the 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.
13-70237 3

-- 3 of 3 --