
    Matiur RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71564.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
    Matiur Rahman, Irvine, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, 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: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable -for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Matiur Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir.2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA found that Rahman did not challenge the IJ’s finding that he could internally relocate. The record does not support the BIA’s conclusion where Rah-man, in his pro se brief to the BIA, argued that he did not think the police would protect him anywhere he went in Bangladesh. Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Rahman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand for the BIA to address the IJ’s internal relocation finding in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 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,
     