
    JIANRUI LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73016
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 13, 2017  Honolulu, Hawaii
    Filed November 02, 2017
    Jisheng Li, Attorney, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner
    OIL, Manuel Palau, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jianrui Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination on the basis of inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and supporting documentation regarding the date his wife was forcibly sterilized, and the total amount he was fined after his children’s unauthorized births. Lin contends the BIA erred by failing to consider his arguments that the IJ did not adequately address his explanations for those inconsistencies. We agree. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); see also Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An .adverse credibility finding is improper when an IJ fails to address a petitioner’s explanation for. a discrepancy or inconsistency.”) (superseded by statute on other grounds).

We grant the petition for review and remand Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims 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 v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009). In light of this disposition, we do not address Lin’s remaining contentions.

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.
     