Case Name: ZENGTAI LIN, a.k.a. Bao Hua Zhang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-20
Citations: 512 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 11-70012
Parties: ZENGTAI LIN, a.k.a. Bao Hua Zhang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 709–710

Head Matter:
ZENGTAI LIN, a.k.a. Bao Hua Zhang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70012.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 20, 2013.
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Elizabeth Do Kurlan, Trial, Oil, 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: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Zengtai Lin, 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 ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and de novo due process claims, Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.
The agency relied on discrepancies between trial exhibit 11, a visa application, and Lin's testimony to find him not credible. However, in its decision, the BIA failed to address Lin's contention that the IJ improperly admitted the visa application. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and we remand for the BIA to address this argument in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2005).
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.