Sandhu
Sandhu v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Parmajit Singh Sandhu and Rajwinder Kaur Sandhu, husband and wife and natives and citizens of India, along with their child Rajneesh Kaur Sandhu, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order concluding that Rajwinder Kaur Sandhu was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because she did not establish persecution on account of a protected ground. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review the BIA’s decision for substantial *982 evidence. Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir.2001). We grant the petition and remand.
Although Rajwinder Sandhu was listed as a derivative applicant on her husband’s asylum application, the IJ and BIA examined her independent claim that, after her husband departed from India, she was raped by police, who called her a Sikh whore and the wife of a deserter. We review the BIA’s determination that this rape did not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground, cf. id. at 864 (“Where, as here, the IJ and the BIA address spouses’ applications for asylum together, we do the same on appeal”), and conclude that it is not supported by substantial evidence.