
    Carlos Arnoldo CONDE QUEVEDO; Amalia Conde Turcios, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72467.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 20, 2014.
    Peter Hurtado, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
    Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Trial, Russell John Verby, 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, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Amoldo Conde Quevedo and Amalia Conde Turcios, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications 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. 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.

Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s finding that their asylum applications were untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to their asylum claims.

In analyzing petitioners’ claims, the BIA assumed Conde Quevedo was a credible witness. We reject petitioners’ contentions that the BIA erred by not analyzing the IJ’s credibility finding further.

.Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. Thus, we deny the petition as to their CAT claims.

In denying petitioners’ withholding of removal claims, the agency found petitioners 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 petitioners’ 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 petitioners’ remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of their 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.
     