
    Daniel CACHAY-SORIANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70269.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 14, 2009.
    
    Filed July 22, 2009.
    Scott A. Mossman, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Larry P. Cote, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Karen J. Sharp, U.S. Department of Justice, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for ' decision without oral argument, and therefore Cachay-Soriano's request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Cachay-Soriano, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we grant the petition for review.

We remand to the BIA to consider whether Cachay-Soriano was targeted on account of his membership in. a particular social group consisting of family members of his brother-in-law, Pedro Benavides. See Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 186-87, 126 S.Ct. 1613, 164 L.Ed.2d 358 (2006); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Moreover, the BIA failed to address whether internal relocation is reasonable and it is unclear whether internal relocation is a question of fact, subject to clear error review by the BIA, or a question of law, subject to de no review by the BIA, so we remand on this issue as well. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 413-15 (9th Cir.2009); Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353.

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.
     