Adolfo Ortiz v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADOLFO ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74296
Agency No. A029-236-106
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.
Adolfo Ortiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the
decision of an immigration judge denying his applications for suspension of
deportation, asylum, withholding of deportation, and protection under the
* 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).
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-74296
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, and de novo questions of law and due process challenges. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009); Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775,
779 (9th Cir. 2001) (due process challenges). We dismiss in part, deny in part,
and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Ortiz’s contention that the agency misapplied its precedent with respect to
the hardship determination is not a colorable question of law or constitutional
challenge that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d
1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 2001); Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.
2001). Thus, we dismiss the petition as to his NACARA claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Ortiz’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El Salvador. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, in denying Ortiz’s asylum and withholding of deportation claims,
the agency found Ortiz failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. When
the BIA issued it decisions in this case, it did not discuss this court’s decisions in

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-74296
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) or Cordoba v.
Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and it did not have the benefit of this
court’s decision in 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 Ortiz’s
asylum and withholding of deportation 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 Ortiz’s remaining challenges to the agency’s
denial of his asylum and withholding of deportation claims.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --