
    Guangfei LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73697
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016
    June 2, 2016
    Guangfei Lin, Monterey Park, CA , Pro Se.
    Alison Drucker, OIL, Ann Carroll Var-non, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice,Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Guangfei Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his,appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir.2014). We grant the petition for review and remand.

We do not consider the 2013 State Department report Lin references in his opening brief because it is not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

The agency found inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the circumstances surrounding his conversion to Christianity as well as Lin’s medical treatment in China. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on these findings. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1087-88 (9th Cir.2011) (IJ’s implausibility finding was “speculative”). Substantial evidence also does not support the agency’s finding that Lin initially could not recall documents he submitted into evidence. See id. at 1087 (petitioners quickly-corrected innocent mistake cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility determination).

Finally, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s corroboration finding because the IJ did not address Lin’s explanation for his failure to provide documents from his U.S. church. See Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1092-93 (9th Cir.2014) (IJ must consider and address all plausible and reasonable explanations); see also Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 620 (9th Cir.2004) (agency erred in failing to consider petitioner’s plausible explanation for why a witness was not available to corroborate claims).

Thus, we grant the petition for review and deem Lin credible, and remand Lin’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims 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).

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,
     