NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 27 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
QIANGQING WANG, No. 13-70017
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-127-130
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Qiangqing Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from 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
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d
966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for review, and remand.
The agency found that Wang did not describe being whipped and did not
give the date of his detention in his written statements. Substantial evidence does
not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on these findings
because Wang did provide this information in his asylum applications. See
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (“To ignore . . . relevant
record evidence would be to make a credibility determination on less than the total
circumstances[.]”). Substantial evidence also does not support the agency’s
finding based on the inconsistency in Wang’s written statements regarding the
length of his detention. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011)
(inconsistencies were trivial and petitioner’s testimony was “overwhelmingly
consistent” with his prior statements). Further, substantial evidence does not
support the agency’s findings based on Wang’s brother’s testimony, see id. at
1086-89 (agency mischaracterized the testimony), or the finding based on Wang’s
lack of knowledge as to the Catholic Church’s headquarters in Honolulu, see id. at
1087-88 (IJ’s implausibility finding was “speculative”). Finally, substantial
evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on
2 13-70017
the lack of corroboration. See Lai, 773 F.3d at 975-76 (corroboration finding did
not support the adverse credibility determination and was procedurally improper).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Wang’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims 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.
3 13-70017