Bushra Nadhem Namoo v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BUSHRA NADHEM NAMOO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76426
Agency No. A096-073-065
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Bushra Nadhem Namoo, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PR/Research 05-76426 2
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2005), and we grant
the petition for review, and remand.
The IJ found that the physical violence and harassment committed by Iraqi
government agents against Namoo, a Chaldean Christian, did not rise to the level
of persecution, and was not on account of a protected ground. These findings are
not supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1085-87; see also Mashiri v.
Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that violence against family
members may support an applicant’s asylum claim).
Accordingly, because a showing of past persecution entitles a petitioner to a
presumption of both a well-founded fear and clear probability of future
persecution, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1) & 1208.16(b)(1)(i), and because the
agency did not analyze Namoo’s claim of future fear under this presumption, we
grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Upon remand, the agency may wish to consider whether Namoo’s fear of future
persecution is objectively reasonable in light of the current situation in Iraq. See
Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --