FRANCISCO EMMANUELLE VILLA- VARGAS, AKA Francisco Emmanuelle Villa v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO EMMANUELLE VILLA-
VARGAS, AKA Francisco Emmanuelle
Villa,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73447
Agency No. A205-317-761
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Emmanuelle Villa-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico,
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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
OCT 22 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 2 --

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for
review and remand.
In denying Villa-Vargas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the
agency found he failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. The BIA did not discuss the impact,
if any, of this court’s recent 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).
Further, when the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they 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
Villa-Vargas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact,
if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per
curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
13-73447 2

-- 2 of 2 --