
    Ana Lidia BOLANOS-SALINAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70011.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2014.
    J. Oscar Shaw, Esquire, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-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: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ana Lidia Bolanos-Salinas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

We lack jurisdiction to review Bolanos-Salinas’s contentions regarding the gender-based social group she raises in her opening brief because she did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

With respect to Bolanos-Salinas’s informant-based social group, in denying her asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Bolanos-Salinas 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 this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.2014), 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). Thus, we remand Bolanos-Salinas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions on her informant-based social group claims. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach Bolanos-Salinas’s requests for a remand regarding the record or her remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of her asylum and withholding of removal claims at this time.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We reject the government's argument that this basis has been waived.
     