
    ZHIHONG AN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73943
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 4, 2016
    Zhihong An, Pro Se.
    James A. Hurley, Attorney, OIL, 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: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zhihong An, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA affirmed the denial of An’s claims based on a failure to corroborate. The agency, however, made its corroboration findings without applying the notice and opportunity to explain requirements set forth in Ren v. Holder, relying instead on a Ninth Circuit, decision that is no longer good law. See Oshodi v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2012), withdrawn by court order, 678 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, we grant An’s petition for review, and remand for the agency to reconsider his claims in light of Ren, and to consider the impact, if any, of the court’s intervening decisions in Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) and Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016). 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.
     