
    XIAO WANG CHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014
    
    Filed May 20, 2014.
    David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xiao Wang Chi, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and we remand.

Chi does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish past persecution in China, but claims police seek to arrest him due to his Christian house church activities. The BIA denied Chi’s claims by finding, in part, that “[n]o evidence was presented establishing that Chinese authorities still have a desire to apprehend” him. (emphasis added.) In making this determination, however, the BIA did not address the letter from Chi’s father regarding the police’s continuing interest in Chi. See Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 948-49 (9th Cir.2010) (remanding for BIA to give reasoned consideration to petitioner’s evidence). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review as to Chi’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. 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.
     