
    JUAN XU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71722.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
    
      Juan Xu, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, 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

Juan Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the date discrepancies identified by the agency are minor and do not go to the heart of Xu’s claim. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.2000). Moreover, the agency erroneously relied on the asylum officer’s interview notes, which were not sufficiently reliable to impeach Xu’s testimony. See Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2005). Finally, because none of the agency’s adverse credibility findings are supported, Xu was not required to provide corroboration. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir.2004).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and remand Xu’s claims to the BIA on an open record. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1093-96 (9th Cir.2009); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 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 9lh Cir. R. 36-3.
     