
    Hugo PASCUAL-CARINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70634.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 19, 2015.
    Kirk J. Anderson, Anderson Law Offices, Nampa, ID, for Petitioner.
    Hugo Pascual-Carino, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Karen Y. Stewart, Esquire, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hugo Pascual-Carino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency found Pascual-Carino failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, but 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). Further, in denying his claim, the agency also did not have the benefit of this court’s intervening decision in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.2011).

Thus, we remand Paseual-Carino’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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     