
    Juan Alberto GONZALEZ-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73158.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 23, 2014.
    Juan Alberto Gonzalez-Flores, Pacoima, CA, pro se.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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

Juan Alberto Gonzalez-Flores, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, 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 asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Muka-sey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Gonzalez-Flores established changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse his untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

In denying Gonzalez-Flores’s withholding of removal claim, the BIA found Gonzalez-Flores 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 Gonzalez-Flores’s withholding of removal claim, and remand to the agency to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventu-ra, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     