Ivanov

Dissent:

Judge Rymer would deny the petition for review.

MEMORANDUM **

Borislav Ivanov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming 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 findings of fact, and we review de novo legal determinations. Wak kary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review and remand.

When determining that Ivanov had not established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, the IJ did not consider several incidents of harm suffered by Iva-nov because the IJ found there was insufficient evidence of government involvement. The IJ erred because affirmative state action is not necessary to establish eligibility for relief if the government is unable or unwilling to control the agents of persecution. See Siong v. INS, 376 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, because the IJ used an incorrect legal standard, we grant the petition for review and remand Ivanov’s asylum and withholding of removal claims for further consideration. See Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BORISLAV IVANOV, No. 07-73566

Petitioner, Agency No. A097-586-656

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010 **

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Borislav Ivanov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming 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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). findings of fact, and we review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder,

558 F.3d…