
    YIMING LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70608.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 3, 2016.
    Thomas Ogden, Counsel, Law Offices of Thomas Ogden, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Shahrzad Ba-ghai, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Lin’s request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yiming Lin, 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 (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Lin claims he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his religion. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, assuming Lin is credible, the harm he suffered in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found [these incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original).

In addressing Lin’s claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his Christianity, however, the BIA faulted Lin for not providing corroborative evidence, even though the IJ did not give Lin notice that corroboration was required, or give him an opportunity to obtain it or explain why it was not reasonably obtainable. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, we remand Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal 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).

We grant respondent’s unopposed motion to withdraw its prior motion to hold this case in abeyance.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     