
    MEIHUA ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71279
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 27, 2017 
    
    Filed July 21, 2017
    Kevin G. Long, Attorney, Law Offices of Long and Associates, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner
    Jennifer Parker Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Julia Tyler, Esquire, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS 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

Meihua Zhang, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The record compels the conclusion that the IJ did not provide Zhang adequate notice of the corroboration required to supplement her credible testimony and an opportunity to explain the reasonable availability of such evidence. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011); Lai, 773 F.3d at 975-76 (concluding that reliance on failure to provide corroborating evidence was procedurally improper where applicant never received notice of a need to produce the corroborative evidence identified in the IJ’s decision or an opportunity to either produce the evidence or explain its unavailability). We note that the IJ did not have the benefit of Ren because it was issued after her decision but before the BIA’s decision. We therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

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