
    Sivanheuang KHAMMANY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73333.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 13, 2012.
    Alexander H. Lubarsky, Esq., Community Legal Centers, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Russell J.E. Verby, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration .Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sivanheuang Khammany, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand for further proceedings.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Khammany has not established it is more likely than not he will face future persecution if returned to Laos. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (upholding the denial of withholding of removal where the possibility of future persecution was speculative). Accordingly, Khammany’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture because Khammany failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Laos. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

In concluding that Khammany was ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the agency did not have the benefit of Peng v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1248, 1256-57 (9th Cir.2012), in which we held that § 212(c) relief remains available to certain aliens who proceeded to trial prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, or Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. -, 182 S.Ct. 1479, 182 L.Ed.2d 473 (2012), in which the Supreme Court discussed the role of a reliance inquiry when the antire-troactivity principle is invoked.

In light of this intervening caselaw, we remand to the BIA to determine Khamma-ny’s eligibility for § 212(c) relief.

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.
     