Iordan Nikolov Stoyanov petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed Mr. Stoyanov’s appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation to Bulgaria. Because the BIA relied on flawed evidence in its decision, we grant the petition and remand for reconsideration.

When the BIA has independently reviewed an immigration judge’s findings, we review the decision of the BIA not the immigration judge. Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1996). We review the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion. Lopez-Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d 954 , 960 (9th Cir.1996). We review the factual findings underlying the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence. Id. at 958.

During Mr. Stoyanov’s- asylum hearing, the government introduced several pieces of evidence to counter Mr. Stoyanov’s substantial testimony regarding persecution. One important piece of evidence was a report prepared by the Office of Asylum Affairs, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. State Department. The report was an individualized analysis of Mr. Stoya-nov’s case. It reads in relevant part:

The report is in error. Mr. Stoyanov did not receive a passport in March. He received a passport on October 3, 1989. That date is clearly stamped on his passport, a copy of which was given to the Office' of Asylum Affairs. The error in the report, which the government now acknowledges, is attributable to an oversight on the part of that office.

In the United States, October 3, 1989, the date Mr. Stoyanov received his passport, is abbreviated “10/3/89.” In Europe, however, the day precedes the number designating the month which, in turn, precedes the abbreviation for the year. Thus, in Europe, October 3, 1989 is abbreviated “3.10.89.”. The difference between notation forms was apparently overlooked by the Office of Asylum Affairs when it prepared its individual analysis of Mr, Stoyanov’s asylum claim, leading that office to the mistaken conclusion that Mr. Stoyanov. had received a passport in March instead of October.

We- know that both the immigration judge and the BIA relied upon the report. The BIA said that “the respondent’s ability to obtain a passport in 1989 was an unusual privilege not offered to persons in difficulty with the authorities as respondent claimed to *1228 be.” It appears that the Office of Asylum Affairs’ report, with its mistaken and misleading conclusion, affected the BIA’s opinion. Thus, we grant the petition and remand for reconsideration.

PETITION GRANTED.