
    Carlos Alfredo ANDRADE-POCASANGRE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73252.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 29, 2015.
    Kari Elisabeth Hong, Law Office of Kari E. Hong, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, 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: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Alfredo Andrade-Pocasangre, a native of Guatemala and dual citizen of Guatemala and El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying Andrade-Pocasangre’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, the BIA found that An-drade-Pocasangre failed to establish membership in a particular social group and failed to establish changed circumstances arising in his country of nationality or in the country to which removal has been ordered. When the BIA issued its decision in this case it did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc) (recognizing that witnesses who testify against gang members may constitute a particular social group), 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). In addition, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.2014) (holding that the BIA was required to consider changed country conditions as they related to a change in petitioner’s personal circumstances). Thus, we remand Andrade-Pocasangre’s motion to reopen for the agency to determine the effect, if any, of these decisions. 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 conclusion, we do not reach Andrade-Pocasangre’s remaining contentions.

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