
    FANG HUA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74526.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
    Fang Hua, Buena Park, CA, pro se.
    James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fang Hua, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009), and we grant and remand the petition for review.

Hua testified she feared persecution because she sheltered two North Korean refugees in her home. The IJ found that Hua feared prosecution and not persecution. The BIA, affirming the IJ, concluded Hua had not established a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground. The agency, however, did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Li, 559 F.3d at 1099, in which the court concluded substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s finding that the petitioner was a mere criminal subject to prosecution when the petitioner violated no Chinese law, but instead came to the aid of refugees in defiance of China’s unofficial policy of discouraging aid to refugees.

Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings in light of 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.
     