
    HONGLIANG HOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73699.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2012.
    
    Filed March 13, 2012.
    Chung N. Phang, Esquire, Law Offices of Chung N. Phang, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Regan Hildebrand, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, Rosanne Perry, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hongliang Hou, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination, because Hou was never given an opportunity to explain the omission from his asylum application of the specific harms he suffered during his detention. See SotoOlarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091-92 (9th Cir.2009) (petitioner must be given an opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies).

Accordingly, we grant the petition as to Hou’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims, and remand to the BIA on an open record 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); Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d at 1095-96.

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.
     