Mercedes De Jesus Sanchez De Franco; v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MERCEDES DE JESUS SANCHEZ DE
FRANCO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71228
Agency Nos. A098-589-371
A098-589-372
A098-589-373
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.
Mercedes de Jesus Sanchez de Franco and her children, natives and citizens
of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
MAY 23 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 --

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). 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
petitioners did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not they will be tortured
if returned to El Salvador. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1196-97 (9th Cir.
2003).
In denying petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA
found they failed to establish past persecution or a 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 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 petitioners’ asylum and withholding of
removal claims, and remand to the agency to determine the impact, if any, of these
decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
11-71228 2

-- 2 of 2 --