T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T BA LW I N D ER K A U R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72020 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 581- 479 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an d C H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B a l w i nde rK aur , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED SEP 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72020 2 s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s . Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 453 F . 3d 1182, 1184- 85 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . W e de nyi n pa rta nd gr a nti n pa rtthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w , a nd r e m a n d f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha t , e ve n though K aur e st abl i shed pastpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof an i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on , her pres um pt i on of a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on w as re bu tt ed by evi dence o f c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d itio n s in I n d ia . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i) ( A ) ; se e a ls o G o n z a le s - H

e rn a n dezv . A s h c r o

ft , 336 F . 3d 995, 999- 1000 ( 9th C i r . 2003) (not i ng thatB IA has e xp ert i se t o con strue c ou ntryre po rt s and det erm i ne w hether coun trycond i t i on s have c hang ed suff i ci ent l y t o rebuta pre sum pt i on of future pe r s e c ut i on) . T he a ge nc yr a t i ona l l yc ons true d the e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d a nd p r o v id e d as u f

f ic ie n tlyin d iv id u a liz e d a n a ly s is o f K au r ’s f u tu r e f e a r . I d. B e c aus e K aurha s note s t abl i s he d aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on, s he n e c e s s a r ilyc a n n o t m e e t th e m o r e s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r d f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. See Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 4 5 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H o w ev er, i n assessi n g h u m an i t ari an asyl u m , th e ag en cy fai l ed t o ad d ress K aur’ s argum entthatshe m aybe el i gi bl e due t o “ other s er i ou s harm ” und er8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( iii) ( B ) . T h u s , w e r e m a n d f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s o n th is is s u e . See IN

S v. V en tu ra , 53 7 U . S . 12 , 16 -18 (20 02 ) ( per c uri am ); H an na v.08- 72020 3 Keisler , 506 F . 3d 933, 939 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( r e m a ndi ng f orf urthe rpr oc e e di ngs w here agencydi d n otconsi der both st atut ory provi si on s f or hu m ani t ar i an as yl um ); see a l so Sa ga ydak v. G on zales , 405 F . 3d 1035, 1040 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( B I A i s not fr ee t o i gn ore argum ent s m ade by app l i cant ). E a c h p a rtys h a l l b e a ri t s o wn c o s t s f o rth i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art, G R A N T E D i n p art; R E M A N D E D .