Case Name: Hardayal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-16
Citations: 104 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 03-71797; Agency No. A78-371-030
Parties: Hardayal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HAWKINS, THOMAS and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Hardayal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71797.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2004.
Decided July 16, 2004.
Ashwani K Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Robbin K. Blaya, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HAWKINS, THOMAS and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hardayal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
After completion of briefing in this case, respondent filed a "notice of withdrawal of certain arguments made in answering brief and motion to remand," and petitioner filed a response. We agree with the respondent's contention that because the BIA did not make an explicit finding as to petitioner's claim of past persecution, it is unclear whether the BIA relied upon the country conditions to rebut the regulatory presumption in 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) which arises from a finding of past persecution. See Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2002).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.
Respondent's motion to remand is denied as moot.
PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule36-3.