¶2 Vino Kumar Saval petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals *499 (“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).
¶3 Saval’s spouse, Gita Kamala Nanikram, 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, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).
¶4 REMANDED.