
    SI ZHONG WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71161.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 6, 2012.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Nicole Thomas-Dorris, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Si Zhong Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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, Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the agency relied exclusively on inconsistencies between Wu’s testimony at the merits hearing and the credible fear interview notes which, in this case, lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. See Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005). Remand for further findings is not necessary in this case because it is apparent from the record that the agency listed all possible reasons to support an adverse credibility determination. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.2009). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings, deeming Wu’s testimony credible. See id. at 1095-96; see also 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     