Court Opinion

ID: 3064348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-14 22:21:57.154262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:20.822169
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUL 23 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIXUAN PAN,                                      No. 09-73772

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A099-064-616

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted July 17, 2012 **

Before:        SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

       Sixuan Pan, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review, and we

remand.

      The BIA did not have the benefit of our decision in Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d

1011 (9th Cir. 2011), at the time it reviewed Pan’s appeal. Accordingly, we grant

Pan’s petition for review and remand for the BIA to consider in the first instance

the impact, if any, of Hu on Pan’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and

CAT relief. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

                                          2                                    09-73772