
    Wendy Ninosca MOLINA-LINARES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73647.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 23, 2014.
    Wendy Ninosca Molina-Linares, Canyon Country, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Corey Leigh Farrell, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wendy Ninosca Molina-Linares, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se 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 grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying Molina-Linares’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA found Molina-Linares failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of either this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc), and Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). In light of these intervening decisions, and our decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir.2010) (remanding for the agency to determine “whether women in Guatemala constitute a particular social group, and, if so, whether [petitioner] has demonstrated a fear of persecution” on account of her membership in a protected group), we grant Molina-Linares’s petition for review and remand her asylum and withholding of removal claims for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     