
    Henry Mendoza ANGEL; Ana Gean De La Cruz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72318.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Jan. 30, 2015.
    Henry Mendoza Angel, Compton, CA, pro se.
    Ana Gean De La Cruz, Compton, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Brooke Maurer, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice,, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, .San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable .for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Henry Mendoza Angel and Ana Gean de la Cruz, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. ,We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying petitioners’ asylum claims, the agency 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 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 petitioners’ asylum 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). In light of this remand, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of asylum at this time.

Respondent’s motion to hold this case in abeyance is denied.

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.
     