James Reynaga Estella v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 598 F. App'x 531 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES LEONARD REYNAGA No. 10-72494
ESTELLA,
Agency No. A046-871-093
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
James Leonard Reynaga Estella, a native and citizen of Peru, 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
*
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).
(“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 Reynaga’s CAT claim, because
he has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government of Peru if he is returned. See Delgado
v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
We reject Reynaga’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by relying
on boilerplate language, as it is contradicted by the record.
In denying Reynaga’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the
agency found Reynaga failed to establish a well-founded 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 Reynaga’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these
2 10-72494
decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In light of
this remand, we do not reach Reynaga’s arguments regarding whether his past
harm rose to the level of persecution or whether he has a well-founded fear of
future persecution.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 10-72494