FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 11 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHUNGUO LIU, No. 15-73031 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-832-525 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Chunguo Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review the BIA's determination that an applicant failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal for substantial evidence. Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant in part and deny in part the petition. I An asylum applicant “must establish a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing both a subjective fear of future persecution, as well as an objectively reasonable possibility of persecution.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[E]ven a ten percent chance of persecution may establish a well-founded fear.” Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001). Liu argues that he established eligibility for asylum through his testimony. Under the REAL ID Act, “[t]he testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant's testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). The BIA determined that Liu’s uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to meet his burden of showing an objectively reasonable possibility of persecution. 2 As an initial matter, Liu’s testimony amply demonstrated that he had a reasonable fear of apprehension and detention at the hands of government actors in China. Liu’s testimony established that government agents sought to arrest him for practicing and organizing Falun Gong and did in fact arrest, detain, and imprison all of the people with whom he regularly practiced. Cf. Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 718 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“[T]he treatment of his similarly-situated family members is highly indicative of the abuse that Zhang would encounter upon return.”). Further, Liu’s testimony established that the police have come to his home in China “often” to search for him since he has been in the United States. “This evidence of government interest in [Liu] increases his likelihood of future persecution.” Id. at 718–19. Finally, Liu’s testimony established that he continues to practice Falun Gong “every day” at his home in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals