
    Alireza ESKANDARIOWRAK, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72074.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 30, 2008.
    John C. Varga, Law Offices of Mike S. Manesh, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esquire, David E. Dauenheimer, Esquire, F. Patrick Hallagan, Esquire, DOJ-U'S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Almeza Eskandariowrak, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), we grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA explicitly found the IJ’s reasons in denying relief “insufficient to sustain an adverse credibility determination,” but concluded Eskandariowrak failed to meet his burden of proof on grounds similar to those the IJ relied upon to find Eskandariowrak not credible. Therefore, the remand requested by the government for clarification is granted.

In light of our disposition, we need not address Eskandariowrak’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by failing to address evidence that underlies his asylum claim.

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