Case Name: Zhilin YANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 542 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 10-72865
Parties: Zhilin YANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 675–676

Head Matter:
Zhilin YANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72865.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Oil, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, 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: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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
Zhilin Yang, 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 factual findings. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir.2011). We grant the petition for review and we remand.
Yang challenges the BIA's conclusion that he failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence. The parties agree that the BIA relied solely on corroboration grounds in denying Yang's application. When the BIA issued its decision, it did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Ren v. Holder. Accordingly, we remand 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).
In light of our remand, we need not reach Yang's due process contentions.
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.