
    Chengdi CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73151.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 24, 2014.
    Chengdi Chen, San Gabriel, CA, pro se.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, OIL, Imran Raza Zaidi, 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: LEAVY, FISHER, 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

Chengdi Chen, a native and citizen of China, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s contentions regarding the untimely filing of his asylum application because he failed to raise these arguments to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

In upholding the IJ’s denial of relief, the BIA found Chen failed to submit reasonable corroboration related to his participation in a home church in China. In reaching this determination, the BIA did not have the benefit of the court’s intervening decision in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Chen’s withholding of removal claim, and remand to the agency 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).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     