
    Telma Guadalupe SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72206.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 26, 2015.
    Erin J. Quinn, Law Offices of Erin J. Quinn, Berkeley, CA, Kari Elisabeth Hong, Law Offices of Kari E. Hong, Red-lands, CA, for Petitioner.
    Justin Robert Markel, Trial, Oil, 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: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. 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

Telma Guadalupe Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Tapia Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir.2013). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

In denying CAT relief, the BIA found Sanchez did not establish that Salvadoran public officials have awareness of the harm she fears and have breached their legal responsibility to prevent it. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1035 (9th Cir.2013) (evidence of government ineffectiveness in combating violence did not compel finding of acquiescence to torture). Thus, we deny the petition as to Sanchez’s CAT claim.

However, in denying Sanchez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Sanchez 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-VG-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R- 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we remand Sanchez’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). In light of this remand, we do not reach Sanchez’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of her asylum and withholding of removal claims at this time.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

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