NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEI MIN LIN, No. 16-73638 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-931-003 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Wei Min Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and 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 for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and we remand. As to asylum and withholding of removal, the record compels the conclusion that the cumulative harm Lin suffered in China rose to the level of persecution. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1213-17 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding petitioner suffered past persecution because of his religious beliefs where he was detained, beaten, forced to sign a document promising not to attend a home church, and required to report to the police weekly); see also Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (totality of the circumstances compelled finding of persecution). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Guo, 897 F.3d at 1217 (finding petitioner was entitled to a presumption of future persecution and remanding to the BIA to determine in the first instance whether the government could rebut the presumption for his asylum and withholding claims); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16- 18 (2002) (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lin failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v. Holder, 589 2 16-73638 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Guo, 897 F.3d at 1217 (insufficient likelihood of torture). The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED. 3 16-73638 16-73638 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Wei Lin v. William Barr 10 August 2020 Agency Unpublished 5d34a9c05f4261ba45b9494c31c0db597101e383
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals