Case Name: Timiro Nur AHMED; IQRA Ahmed Mohamud, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-15
Citations: 126 F. App'x 871
Docket Number: No. 03-71764
Parties: Timiro Nur AHMED; IQRA Ahmed Mohamud, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 871–872

Head Matter:
Timiro Nur AHMED; IQRA Ahmed Mohamud, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71764.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2005.
Decided April 15, 2005.
Hilary A. Han, Esq., Dobrin & Han, LLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., AnhThu P. Mai, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and SAND, Senior District Judge.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Leonard B. Sand, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that Ahmed's rape and abuse were motivated, at least in part, "on account of' her membership in the Darod clan, a social group. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc).
Because the BIA has not considered whether Ahmed's showing of past persecution on account of her clan membership can be rebutted by the government with evidence of changed country conditions, or should the past persecution presumption be defeated, whether Ahmed has a well-founded fear of future persecution, we remand these issues to allow the BIA to consider in the first instance. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). Furthermore, we remand Ahmed's CAT claim for the BIA to clarify the basis for its denial. We decline, however, to remand for the BIA to decide whether Ahmed is credible. See Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir.1986).
PETITION GRANTED.
pjjjg 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 Rule 36-3.