
    Elvira BARTOLO-SEBASTIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70912.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept: 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2014.
    Mei F. Chen, Law Office of Mei F. Chen, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
    Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial, 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: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elvira Bartolo-Sebastian, 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 withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying Bartolo-Sebastian’s withholding of removal claim, the agency found Bartolo-Sebastian failed to establish a clear probability that her life or freedom would be threatened 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 Bartolo-Sebastian’s withholding of removal claim to determine the impact, 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 remand, we do not reach Bartolo-Sebastian’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of her withholding of removal claim at this time.

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.
     