Eric Audy Oroh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ERIC AUDY OROH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73453
Agency No. A095-618-262
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Eric Audy Oroh, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his claim for withholding of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73453 2
factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
grant the petition for review and remand.
In analyzing Oroh’s withholding of removal claim, the BIA declined to
apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922,
927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Because intervening case law holds the disfavored group
analysis applies to withholding of removal claims, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1062-65, we remand to the agency for reconsideration whether Oroh is entitled to
withholding of removal, see INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per
curiam); see also Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d 521, 526 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[A]ny reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude on this record that
Christian Indonesians are a disfavored group.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --