Guangxia Zuo v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUANGXIA ZUO; et al., No. 14-73786 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A200-274-286 A200-274-287 v. A200-274-288 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 9, 2017 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, ** District Judge. Guangxia Zuo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing her appeal of a removal order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation. under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and reviewing the BIA decision for substantial evidence, Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007), we grant the petition for review. 1. The BIA’s adverse credibility finding, based on two minor omissions in Zuo’s application and its belief that she did not adequately explain those omissions, was not supported by substantial evidence and is reversed. See Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2014). 2. The BIA’s alternative finding that, “even assuming credibility,” Zuo did not establish a well-founded fear of religious persecution in China, was not supported by substantial evidence. Zuo demonstrated a particularized threat beyond the generalized risk to all practitioners of the I-Kuan Tao religion. See Al-Harbi v. I.N.S., 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001). The BIA’s finding as to well-founded fear is reversed. We remand for a grant of withholding of removal and consideration of a grant of asylum. We do not reach the merits of Zuo’s CAT claim because we grant the petition on other grounds. Petition GRANTED. 2 14-73786 14-73786 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Guangxia Zuo v. Jefferson Sessions 24 November 2017 Agency Unpublished 9bc49e767e4119124e9c904f87137a507c90c586

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals