NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANAN SUN, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 70003 Agency No. A205

- 554

- 644

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 1 5 , 2022 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ , TASHIMA , and FRIEDLAND , Circuit Judge s. Yanan Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigra tion Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 70003

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1 252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review , and we remand.
The BIA found no clear error in t hree factual findings the IJ relied on in support of an adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence does not
support t wo of those findings , specifically, the finding of an omission as to Sun’s exposure to Christianity and the finding that Sun failed to provide sufficient details
as to her practice of Christianity. See Ren v. Holder , 648 F.3d 1079, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) ( substantial evidence di d not support the agency’s adverse credibility findings where they were based on mischaracterizations of the record ); see also
Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1065

- 66 (9th Cir. 2020) ( petitioner's account determined sufficiently descriptive of pertinent event s and where the agency did not identify which portions of testimony were lacking in detail )

. Thus, s ubstantial
evidence only supports the single remaining ground of the agency’s adverse credibility determination , specifically, the finding of inconsistenci es between Sun’s testimony and supporting documents as to an encounter with police

. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1043

- 45 ( overview of the analysis required to determine whether an inconsistency can support an adverse credibility determination ).3 20

- 70003

An adverse credibility determination must be made and reviewed “ based on
the ‘totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors,’ not a single factor.” See
Alam v. Garland , 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)( iii) ). Thus, w e grant the petition for review and we remand Sun’s asylum and withholding of removal claims on an open record to the BIA for
reconsider ation of the adverse credibility determination in light of the “totality of
the circumstances [ ] and all relevant factors.” Id. at 1135 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted) ; see also INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam);
Soto

- Olarte v. Holder , 555 F.3d 1089, 1095

- 96 (9th Cir. 2009)

. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Sun’s con tentions regarding past persecution. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA). As to CAT relief, n either the IJ nor the BIA addressed Sun’s country
conditions evidence in the assessment of whether she had identified any record evidence apart from her testimony found not credible that compel led the conclusion that it is more likely than not s he would be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China

. Th is was

error
. See Aguilar

- Ramos v. Holder , 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Because the BIA failed to consider the Country Report at all, the proper course of action is

to remand with instruction s that the BIA reconsider [petitioner’s] CAT claim in4 20

- 70003

light of the Country Report.”)

. Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Sun’s CAT claim and we remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition

. See id. ; see also Ventur a , 537 U.S. at 16

- 18

. We do not consider the materials Sun references in her opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
To the extent Sun raises a political opinion claim, a disfavored group claim, and contends she was not allowed to fully testify as to how she was introduced to Christianity, we lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F .3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
issues or claims not presented below )

. Sun’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the B IA

. The parties must bear their own costs on appeal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DISMISS ED in part;
REMANDED.