
    Marisa Setyawati WISNUBROTO; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73177.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2011.
    Catherine Susan Willmore, Esquire, Law Office of Catherine Willmore, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Sada Manickam, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marisa Setyawati Wisnubroto, and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners’ experiences, in-eluding the threatening phone calls they received, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. However, in assessing petitioners’ future fear, as ethnically Javanese Evangelical Christians, the BIA did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to consider petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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.
     