
    Eric Audy OROH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73453.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed July 29, 2010.
    William K. Kiang, Esquire, Kiang & Kiang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regan Hildebrand, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire Office of the District Counsel department of Homeland Security Los Angeles, CA, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the Distinct Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eric Audy Oroh, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his claim for 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 remand.

In analyzing Oroh’s withholding of removal claim, the BIA declined to apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Because intervening case law holds the disfavored group analysis applies to withholding of removal claims, see Wakka-ry, 558 F.3d at 1062-65, we remand to the agency for reconsideration whether Oroh is entitled to withholding of removal, see INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); see also Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d 521, 526 (9th Cir.2010) (“[A]ny reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude on this record that Christian Indonesians are a disfavored group.”).

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.
     