Case Name: Fensong ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-29
Citations: 331 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 05-72337
Parties: Fensong ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HALL, RYMER and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 500–502

Head Matter:
Fensong ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72337.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 8, 2009.
Filed May 29, 2009.
Joel Spence, Law Offices of Joel Spence, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Oil, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Victor D. Stone, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division-Appellate, Washington, D.C., CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before HALL, RYMER and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fensong Zhu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We review the IJ's credibility findings for substantial evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002). We grant the petition because the IJ did not allow Zhu's lawyer to cross-examine the government's key witness — the questioned documents examiner who issued a report opining that Zhu's documents were fraudulent. Cross-examination should have been allowed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B) (providing that an alien in a removal hearing must have "a reasonable opportunity . to cross-examine witnesses presented by the government"); Saidane v. INS, 129 F.3d 1063, 1064-65 (9th Cir.1997). The witness was available by telephone, and, contrary to the government's assertions, Zhu did object to the IJ's ruling at the appropriate times and noted specific deficiencies with the report. The result of this error is that the adverse credibility finding was proee-durally flawed.
We remand for a new hearing. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2009).
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.