Case Name: Vino Kumar SAVAL and Gita Kamala Nanikram, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-05
Citations: 433 F. App'x 498
Docket Number: No. 05-75622
Parties: Vino Kumar SAVAL and Gita Kamala Nanikram, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: NOONAN, McKEOWN , and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 498–499

Head Matter:
Vino Kumar SAVAL and Gita Kamala Nanikram, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75622.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2010.
Filed May 5, 2011.
Alison L. Dixon, Law Office of Alison Dixon, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robert Markle, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Joan Elizabeth Marshall, U.S. Department of Justice, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
Before: NOONAN, McKEOWN , and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Judge McKeown was drawn to replace Judge Hall on this panel after her death.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vino Kumar Saval petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. While his appeal was pending before this court, Saval died. His petition for review is now moot. See Gonzalez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2010).
Saval's spouse, Gita Kamala Nanikram, was a derivative beneficiary on Saval's asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(f), 1208.21(b). No statute, regulation, or BIA precedent decision clearly addresses the effect of an asylum applicant's death on derivative beneficiaries. We remand to the BIA to address this issue in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.