
    Aliaksandr KRASANTOVICH; Liubov Vyacheslavovna Akulintseva, a.k.a. Leobov Vioachislavovna, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70026.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 17, 2014.
    Yevgeniy Chechenin, Berkeley, CA, pro se.
    Ali Manuehehry, Esquire, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aliaksandr Krasantovich, a native and citizen of Belarus, and Liubov Vyachesla-vovna Akulintseva, a native and citizen of Russia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 (9th Cir.2010). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency found Krasantovich not credible based on a perceived lack of candor in his testimony and discrepancies between his testimony and his visa application. These findings are not supported by substantial evidence. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1087 (9th Cir.2011) (inconsistencies had no basis in the record). The agency also found Krasantovich failed to corroborate his testimony. However, at the time it made this finding, it did not have the benefit of our decision in Ren, 648 F.3d at 1089-94. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and remand Krasanto-vich’s 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, 1093-96 (9th Cir.2009).

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.
     