Case Name: LI WAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-26
Citations: 632 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 13-72834
Parties: LI WAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 369–370

Head Matter:
LI WAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72834.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
Anders Laird Johnson, Trial, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Oil, Jennifer Paisner Williams, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, U.S. Department of. Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Li Wan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir.2011), and we grant the petition for review.
The agency found Wan failed to present sufficient corroborating evidence to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for relief. Substantial evidence does not support the agency's finding. See ZM v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the immigration judge erred in not providing the petitioner notice that he was required to present the corroborative evidence referred to in her decision or the opportunity to explain why it might be unavailable). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Wan's claims to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.