chooses to rely. On remand, the agency must consider “in a reasoned manner” any such explanations, as well as Manasian’s earlier explanation for the inconsistency in her identification of the individuals responsible for the kidnapping and rape. See Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d at 1092. If the agency finds Mana-sian credible, it should consider in the first instance whether Manasian is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 . The IJ and the BIA, in denying Manasian CAT relief, cited both Manasian's lack of credibility, as well as other record evidence. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because we conclude that the adverse
holding that defeat of asylum claim on credibility grounds does not necessarily preclude relief on a cat claim holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility holding that a negative credibility finding for the purposes of an asylum claim does not preclude relief under cat where documented country conditions corroborate a claim of torture holding that when the asylum withholding of removal and cat claims are based on the same factual predicate a credibility ruling necessarily forecloses relief in each holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of an adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility