
    Marcos Antonio AGUILAR-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73020.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 29, 2014.
    Marcos Antonio Aguilar-Rodriguez, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Sunah Lee, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA 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

Marcos Antonio Aguilar-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and grant in part, the petition for review and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Aguilar-Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir.2008).

The agency determined Aguilar-Rodriguez had not met the nexus requirement for withholding of removal. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions 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 Aguilar-Rodriguez’s withholding of removal claim, and remand 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).

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

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