
    Julia DAVID, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70134.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 27, 2012.
    Gihan L. Thomas, Esquire, Law Offices of Gihan L. Thomas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ari Nazarov, OIL, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julia David, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part petition for review, and we remand.

We reject David’s contention that the IJ refused to allow her to elaborate on the harm she suffered and precluded her from presenting her case. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process claim).

With respect to her asylum claim, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s finding that David failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm under the disfavored group analysis to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we grant the petition as to David’s asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand so the Attorney General may exercise his discretion as to whether to grant asylum, and for the agency to consider her withholding of removal claim in light of our conclusions.

In addition, we remand David’s CAT claim because the BIA did not explain its basis for denying CAT relief.

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED 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.
     