Marcos Antonio Aguilar- Rodriguez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCOS ANTONIO AGUILAR-
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73020
Agency No. A200-289-337
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Marcos Antonio Aguilar-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
FILED
MAY 29 2014
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 2 --

Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence factual findings, and review
de novo questions of law. 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 BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Aguilar-Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured with
the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. See Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008).
The agency determined Aguilar-Rodriguez had not met the nexus
requirement for withholding of removal. When the IJ and BIA issued their
decisions 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), and Cordoba
v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), 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 grant the petition as to Aguilar-Rodriguez’s withholding of
removal claim, and remand to 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 their own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; and
REMANDED.
12-73020 2

-- 2 of 2 --