
    Piara SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73373.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
    Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Piara Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Mousa v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1025, 1027 (9th Cir.2008). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on discrepancies between Singh’s testimony and documentary evidence and unresponsive answers during cross-examination. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the discrepancies were either reasonably explained or did not go to the heart of Singh’s claim, see id. at 1027-29; see also Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001), and the record does not support the finding that Singh was unresponsive, see Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir.2005).

Thus, we grant the petition and remand Singh’s claims to the agency, 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); see also 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     