Case Name: Shiva Prasad SUBEDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-14
Citations: 583 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 10-73959
Parties: Shiva Prasad SUBEDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Shiva Prasad SUBEDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73959.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 8, 2014.
Filed July 14, 2014.
Ramesh Kumar Shrestha, Esquire, Law Office of Ramesh K. Shrestha, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. Because the Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) conducted its own review of the evidence and law, our review is limited to the BIA's decision. Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113-14 (9th Cir.2013). "Without knowing the basis of the [BIA's] decision, we cannot conduct a meaningful review" of it. Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc).
We cannot determine on this record whether the BIA's asylum determination that the harm that Subedi suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA's determination with regard to this issue consisted of a simple conclusion. The BIA did not provide any reasoning, explanation, or analysis for its conclusion. More specifically, we cannot determine whether the BIA took into account all of Subedi's harm, individually and cumulatively, see Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir.2004); whether the BIA engaged in impermissible fact finding (because it is unclear whether the immigration judge made a past persecution finding), see Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 915 (9th Cir.2012); or whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard, see Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 991 (9th Cir.2000). We therefore remand to the BIA so that it can provide a reasoned decision.
2. Because we grant the petition with regard to whether Subedi established past persecution, a finding of which could shift the burden of proof for a well-founded fear of future persecution, we decline to address the BIA's determination as to that issue. Furthermore, because the BIA's decision is unclear as to whether it properly applied the correct legal standard, we also decline to address whether substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination for Subedi's applications for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture.
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.