
    Elmer Alexander BONILLA-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74293.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 15, 2015.
    Gloria P. Martinez-Senftner, Esquire, The Martinez-Senftner Law Firm, Rose-ville, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Genevieve Holm, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elmer Alexander Bonilla-Mendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

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

In. denying Bonilla-Mendez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found he 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 Bonilla-Mendez’s asylum and 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 Bonilla-Mendez’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims.

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 9 th Cir. R.«36-3.
     