Changmin Jiang v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANGMIN JIANG, No. 16-71241
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-252-249
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 12, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, FISHER,*** and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Changmin Jiang petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and his request for
*
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).
***
The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Petitioner, a Chinese
citizen, was arrested by police officers while attending a Christian home-church
gathering in China, detained for five days, interrogated, and beaten. Petitioner was
released on conditions that he pay a bail bond, not attend home-church gatherings
or contact home-church members, report to the police on a weekly basis, and
during those reporting sessions, report his weekly activities. After reporting 12 to
13 times, Petitioner fled China to the United States.
“We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for
substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial,
and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Wang v. Sessions,
861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We may
reverse the decision of the [BIA] only if the applicant shows that the evidence
compels the conclusion that the asylum decision was incorrect.” Gu v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006).
1. Petitioner contends that the BIA’s determination that he is ineligible for
asylum based on his past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution is
not supported by substantial evidence.
In Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2018), we recently held
1
Petitioner does not contest the BIA’s denial of his petition for withholding of
removal in this petition.
2
that substantial evidence compelled a finding of past persecution in circumstances
that are substantially similar to these. Like here, the petitioner in Guo was arrested
while attending Christian home-church services, slapped in the face and beaten
during an interrogation, detained for a period of days, and released only upon
payment of a bond. Id. The petitioner’s conditions of release prohibited him from
attending home-church gatherings, required him to report to the police weekly, and
subjected him to arrest for violating either release condition. Id. Given these
similarities, Guo controls the outcome of this petition for review. “[T]he evidence
compels a finding of past persecution, thus requiring us to remand this case to the
BIA in order for it to apply the presumption of future persecution.” Id. at 1213.
2. Petitioner also contends that the BIA erred in denying CAT relief. “To
qualify for CAT relief, a petitioner must establish that it is more likely than not that
he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” Id. at
1217 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Torture is defined, in part, as any act by
which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted). “This concept is more severe than
persecution.” Id. (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner is not
“more likely than not” to be tortured if removed to China. Like in Guo, Petitioner
3
contends that he will be arrested if he is returned to China. See id. While
Petitioner testified that his wife, who remained in China, informed him that police
have visited the family home five to six times since he came to United States and
threatened “more serious consequences” if he did not return, police have not
visited his home since December 2012. Thus, we find Petitioner has not
“provide[d] the substantial evidence . . . necessary to overcome the BIA’s
conclusion that he has not demonstrated a likelihood of being tortured in China,”
and we therefore deny his petition for CAT relief. Id.
We GRANT the petition for review in part as to the asylum claim and
REMAND to the BIA for it to apply the presumption of future persecution. We
DENY the petition in part as to the CAT claim. The parties shall bear their own
costs on appeal.
4