
    YONG BIN LIU, aka Yongbin Liu, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73004.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 29, 2015.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Corey Leigh Farrell, 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: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yong Bin Liu, 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 remand.

The BIA found that even if Liu’s asylum application was timely, his testimony was credible, and that he corroborated his testimony, Liu failed to establish his experiences in China rose to the level of persecution. In reaching this determination, the BIA did not consider all of Liu’s experiences, including the fine levied against him and his wife’s forced abortion. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.2014) (explaining that a spouse’s forced abortion is part of petitioner’s claim of past persecution); see also Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1998) (“The key question is whether, looking at the cumulative effect of all the incidents a petitioner has suffered, the treatment [he or] she received rises to the level of persecution.”). Thus, we remand Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to the BIA 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.
     