
    Conglin ZHONG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73315
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 2, 2016
    Mun Su Park, Ph.D., Law Offices of Park & Associates, Tamuning, GU, for Petitioner.
    Julia Tyler, Esquire, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Conglin Zhong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s credibility determination, because the agency relied on inconsistencies not supported by the record, see Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011), and failed to address Zheng’s explanations for an inconsistency as to the number of children he had in China, see Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). Further, the “omission” the agency relied on is not a specific and cogent reason to find Zhong not credible under the totality of the circumstances. See Lai, 773 F.3d at 970-76. Thus, we grant Zhong’s petition for review and remand his 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. 363, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     