Wenceslao De Jesus Estevez- Gallardo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENCESLAO DE JESUS ESTEVEZ-
GALLARDO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70638
Agency No. A099-528-859
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.
Wenceslao de Jesus Estevez-Gallardo, 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 decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
FILED
NOV 25 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 --

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
Estevez-Gallardo has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador if he is
returned. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
Estevez-Gallardo argued in his brief to the BIA, and in his brief to this court,
that he feared persecution in El Salvador based on a social group consisting of his
family. In denying Estevez-Gallardo’s claims, the BIA did not address this
argument, nor did it 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 Estevez-
Gallardo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims for the agency to analyze his
argument in the first instance, and to determine the impact, if any, of these
decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
10-70638 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.
10-70638 3

-- 3 of 3 --