FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINO KUMAR SAVAL and GITA No. 05-75622
KAMALA NANIKRAM,
Agency Nos. A071-950-956
Petitioners, A071-950-957
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, McKEOWN ***, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
*** Judge McKeown was drawn to replace Judge Hall on this panel after
her death.
Vino Kumar Saval petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s denial
of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. While his appeal was pending before this court,
Saval died. His petition for review is now moot. See Gonzalez v. Holder, 594 F.3d
1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010).
Saval’s spouse, Gita Kamala Nanakram, was a derivative beneficiary on
Saval’s asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.14(f), 1208.21(b). No statute,
regulation, or BIA precedent decision clearly addresses the effect of an asylum
applicant’s death on derivative beneficiaries. We remand to the BIA to address
this issue in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002).
REMANDED.