MEMORANDUM *

Petitioners Denis Kallas (“Denis”), his wife Yaroslavna Kallas (‘Yaroslavna”), and *671 their daughter Margarita Kallas (“Margarita”), citizens of Ukraine, appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affir-mance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Kallases’ asylum application was based on persecution suffered as the result of Denis’s Tatar ethnicity and activism in a minority rights group in Ukraine, and on Yaroslavna’s Jewish ethnicity and participation in a student protest against anti-Jewish discrimination. The IJ denied the application because he found Denis and Yaroslavna not credible.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility determinations were not supported by substantial evidence, and that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. We therefore grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

We address each of the IJ’s reasons for his adverse credibility determination:

Denis Kallas

Yaroslavna Kallas

Notwithstanding the high degree of deference afforded to the IJ’s credibility determination, the IJ must provide “‘a *672 specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.’ ” Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). As none of the grounds provided by the IJ support an adverse credibility determination, substantial evidence compels the conclusion that Denis and Yaroslavna testified credibly.

We therefore remand this matter to the BIA under INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002). See also He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593 (9th Cir.2003). Because it is “apparent from the record before us that the IJ and BIA have listed all possible reasons to support an adverse credibility determination, and they are inadequate in law or not supported by substantial evidence,” Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.2009), on remand the BIA shall credit Petitioners’ testimony as true and proceed to determine whether they are entitled to relief from removal. In light of our disposition, we need not address Petitioners’ due process claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided *671 by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.