
    Gloria Cruz RAUNO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Gloria Cruz Rauno, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Gloria Cruz Rauno, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-70712, 07-72238, 07-72943.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 18, 2011.
    Filed March 3, 2011.
    Gloria Cruz Rauno, Ontario, CA, pro se.
    Charles Lifland, Kelsey Larson, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, OIL, 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: ALARCÓN, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Gloria Cruz Rauno, a native and citizen of Guatemala, appeals a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture from Guatemala. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and grant the petition.

Although deference is due to the agency’s credibility determinations, see Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041-42 (9th Cir.2010), in this case the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, which the BIA did not disturb, is not supported by substantial evidence. With one exception, the inconsistencies identified are simply not inconsistencies at all. Ruano’s statement at the border does differ from her later statement to the asylum officer and IJ, but it cannot carry the day. See Singh v. INS, 292 F.3d 1017, 1022-24 (9th Cir.2002). The merits of Ruano’s application are not before us, nor did the BIA rule on the merits. Therefore, we remand so that the BIA may determine in the first instance Rauno’s eligibility for relief in light of her credible testimony. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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