Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0260-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XIAODAN ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70593.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2014.
    
      Xiang Li, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Andrea Gevas, 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: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xiaodan Zhang, a native and citizen China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum and 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 we remand.

In upholding the IJ’s denial of relief, the BIA faulted Zhang for failing to corroborate her claim related to her cesarean section. Because the IJ did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.2011), and the BIA did not apply the framework articulated in Ren, 648 F.3d at 1090-93, we grant the petition for review. We remand Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition, including, if appropriate, remand to the IJ. 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.