Case Name: JIAHAO JIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-30
Citations: 699 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 16-70271
Parties: JIAHAO JIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
JIAHAO JIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-70271
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 30, 2017
Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
OIL, Katherine Ann Smith, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Jiahao Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") 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 the agency's factual findings. Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The agency denied Jin's claims based on a finding that Jin failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence. Substantial evidence does not support the agency's finding. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011); see Zhi, 751 F.3d at 1095 (IJ erred in not providing applicant notice that he was required to present corroborative evidence referred to in her decision). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.