Kiranjeet Kaur 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIRANJEET KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74971
Agency No. A073-413-287
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kiranjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74971 2
for substantial evidence. Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009).
We grant the petition for review and remand.
The record compels the conclusion Kaur suffered past persecution based on
her arrest and detention, during which she was threatened with rape and death and
kicked in her back; the arrests and interrogation of her mother; and the multiple
arrests and beatings of her brother and father. See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d
1069, 1074-75 (9th Cir.), amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2002); Mashiri v.
Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1119-21 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because Kaur established past persecution, she is entitled to a presumption
that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504
F.3d 1183, 1197 (9th Cir. 2007). We remand for the agency to decide in the first
instance whether the government has met its burden to rebut this presumption. See
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Melkonian v.
Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding error in the agency’s failure
to consider the fact that petitioner’s wife and son had both been granted asylum in
the United States in evaluating the reasonableness of relocation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --