
    Bushra Nadhem NAMOO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76426.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 25, 2010.
    Aziz Jamil Asmar, Esquire, Law Offices of Aziz J. Asmar, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Edward John Duffy, Trial, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bushra Nadhem Namoo, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming 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, Kroto-va v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.

The IJ found that the physical violence and harassment committed by Iraqi government agents against Namoo, a Chaldean Christian, did not rise to the level of persecution, and was not on account of a protected ground. These findings are not supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1085-87; see also Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that violence against family members may support an applicant’s asylum claim).

Accordingly, because a showing of past persecution entitles a petitioner to a presumption of both a well-founded fear and clear probability of future persecution, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1) & 1208.16(b)(1)®, and because the agency did not analyze Namoo’s claim of future fear under this presumption, we grant the petition for review 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). Upon remand, the agency may wish to consider whether Namoo’s fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable in light of the current situation in Iraq. See Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.2007).

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.
     