
    Isidoro PABLO-PABLO, aka Teodoro Pablo-Pablo, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71054.
    United States,Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed July 28, 2015.
    Lesley Irizarry-Hougan, L.I.H. Law, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Enitan Otunla, O.I.L., D.O.J.-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, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The 90-day stay of proceedings in this case expired on June 15, 2015. Thus, the respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.

Isidoro Pablo-Pablo, 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 (“U”) decision denying his application for 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Pablo-Pablo failed to establish it is more likely ■than not he would be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See id. at 1073.

In denying withholding of removal, however, the agency found Pablo-Pablo 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 Pablo-Pablo’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 Pablo-Pablo’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his withholding of removal claim.

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.
     