Case Name: Xinhua LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-09
Citations: 548 F. App'x 351
Docket Number: No. 11-70799
Parties: Xinhua LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 351–351

Head Matter:
Xinhua LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70799.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Dec. 9, 2013.
Dixon Wong, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Dixon Wong, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
William Clark Minick, Trial, Oil, DOJ-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: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Xinhua Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and we remand.
The BIA determined Li's testimony was not sufficiently persuasive and specific to establish she underwent a forced abortion in China, and that she provided no corroboration of this claim. The BIA also determined Li failed to corroborate the arrests based on her Christian religion. In reaching these conclusions, the BIA did not have the benefit of our decision in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.2011), regarding notice and an opportunity to provide corroborative evidence. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand this case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. 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.