NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIANG HE, No. 13-71517
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-884-720
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Liang He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s 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).
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility finding
based on either an alleged discrepancy and/or vague testimony regarding his
marriage, because the findings are not supported by the record. See Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2011) (under the REAL ID Act, the
agency must provide specific and cogent reasons in support of an adverse
credibility decision); see also Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“[W]hen an IJ’s other reasons for finding an asylum applicant not credible are not
supported by substantial evidence, the applicant, being otherwise credible, is
entitled to notice that [s]he needs to produce corroborative evidence and an
opportunity to either produce the evidence or explain why it is unavailable.”).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand to the agency, on an open
record, for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Soto-Olarte v. Holder,
555 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 13-71517