Wei Lin v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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