
    Alvaro DIAZ, a.k.a. Alvaro Alexander Diaz, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71844.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2014.
    Claudia Jasmine Lopez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Oil, Im-ran Raza Zaidi, Trial, 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: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alvaro Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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, 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 the agency’s factual findings. 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.

We reject Diaz’s contentions regarding streamlining because the BIA did not issue a streamlined decision.

Diaz has not challenged the agency’s finding that his application for asylum is untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Diaz failed to establish- that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.2011).

However, in denying Diaz’s withholding of removal claim, the agency found Diaz 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 Diaz’s withholding of removal claim 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 Diaz’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his withholding of removal claim at this time.

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.
     