
    Kiranjeet KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74971.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2011.
    
      Kari Elisabeth Hong, Law Offices of Kari E. Hong, Redlands, CA, Kiranjeet Kaur, Carteret, NJ, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sada Manickam, Esquire, Trial, Brooke Maurer, Trial, OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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

Kiranjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, 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 asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The record compels the conclusion Kaur suffered past persecution based on her arrest and detention, during which she was threatened with rape and death and kicked in her back; the arrests and interrogation of her mother; and the multiple arrests and beatings of her brother and father. See Salazar-Paucar v. INS, 281 F.3d 1069, 1074-75 (9th Cir.), amended by 290 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2002); Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1119-21 (9th Cir. 2004).

Because Kaur established past persecution, she is entitled to a presumption that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1197 (9th Cir.2007). We remand for the agency to decide in the first instance whether the government has met its burden to rebut this presumption. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); see also Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2003) (finding error in the agency’s failure to consider the fact that petitioner’s wife and son had both been granted asylum in the United States in evaluating the reasonableness of relocation).

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.
     