
    Sonam DHARGYAL, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH,
       United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-3420.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 1, 2016.
    Sonam Dhargyal, Pro Se, Woodside, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted as the respondent in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
   Petitioner Sonam Dhargyal, a native and citizen of an unknown country, seeks review of a July 25, 2012, order of the BIA, affirming the March 1, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sonam Dhargyal, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 25, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. New York City Mar. 1, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, ie., minus the arguments for denying relief that were rejected or not explicitly relied on by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

By predicating the denial of relief solely upon the insufficiency of Dhargyal’s identity-related documentary evidence, without regard to his testimony or the IJ’s related credibility determination, the BIA erroneously deprived Dhargyal of the “potential benefit” of succeeding on credible testimony alone. See Diallo v. I.N.S., 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). While an applicant’s “nationality, or lack of nationality, is a threshold question in determining his eligibility for asylum,” Dhoumo v. BIA, 416 F.3d 172, 174 (2d Cir.2005), an applicant may nevertheless demonstrate asylum eligibility through credible testimony alone. See Diallo, 232 F.3d at 287; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Indeed, the BIA identified no authority in support of its implicit finding that an alien must meet his burden for asylum by demonstrating his nationality and citizenship through documentary evidence. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for consideration of Dhargyal’s testimony and the IJ’s related credibility determination. See Urgen v. Holder, 768 F.3d 269 (2d Cir.2014) (granting similar petition).

We additionally note that, unlike eligibility for asylum, which is dependent upon an applicant demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of “‘nationality,’” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528-29 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)), withholding of removal and CAT relief are “available as to ... the proposed country of removal,” cf. Dhoumo, 416 F.3d at 175 (discussing withholding of removal); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) (predicating eligibility for CAT relief on an finding that “it is more likely than not that [the applicant] would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” (emphasis added)). Here, the IJ found that Dhargyal credibly established his Tibetan ethnicity, and we have held that an applicant may establish eligibility for withholding and CAT relief on the basis of objective evidence even though an applicant’s claims of past mistreatment were found not credible. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005).

Thus, to the extent that the IJ’s finding of Dhargyal’s Tibetan ethnicity is affirmed on remand, and China remains designated as a country of removal, the BIA must consider his eligibility for withholding and CAT relief as to China irrespective of whether Dhargyal can establish Chinese citizenship. See Paul, 444 F.3d at 156.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this order.  