
    Francisco Emmanuelle VILLA-VARGAS, aka Francisco Emmanuelle Villa, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73447.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2015.
    Francisco Emmanuelle Villa, Sanjay Sobti, Esquire, Corona, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Liza Murcia, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer Paisner Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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 bane) 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, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     