
    Claudia TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70682.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 12, 2014.
    
    Filed June 16, 2014.
    Gloria G. Lopez, Esquire, Law Office of Gloria Lopez, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, William Clark Minick, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Claudia Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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.

Torres does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

In denying Torres’s withholding of removal claim on nexus grounds, the BIA rejected Torres’ proposed social group. 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). In light of these intervening decisions, and our intervening decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir.2010), we grant Torres’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Finally, we deny as moot Torres’s motion to remand and motion to hold case in abeyance.

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.
     