Feng Min Zhang v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Feng Min Zhang v. Holder

388 F. App'x 655

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 19, 2010

Docket07-72515

StatusUnpublished

This text of 388 F. App'x 655 (Feng Min Zhang v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Feng Min Zhang v. Holder, 388 F. App'x 655 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Feng Min Zhang and her husband, Li Wei Zhang, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying them application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s denial of petitioners’ withholding of removal claim because Feng Min established that she suffered a forced abortion when she was coerced into having an abortion to keep her job. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.2003) (abortion was forced where officials reduced petitioner’s wages and threatened to fire her and impose fines). Further, the agency improperly required corroboration after finding Feng Min credible. See Katana v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting BIA’s finding that applicant did not meet his burden of proof because he failed to provide documentary evidence to corroborate his credible testimony).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review with respect to withholding of removal and remand Feng Min’s claim with instructions that she be granted withholding of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B); Tang v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 987, 988 (9th Cir.2007) (“victims of forced abortion ... are statutorily entitled to withholding of removal”), and remand Li Wei’s claim for the agency to consider whether he established “other resistance” to the coercive population control program, see Jiang v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1099, 1106-08 (9th Cir.2010).

In addition, the agency did not consider whether Feng Min’s forced abortion constituted torture, so we grant the petition with respect to the CAT claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *657 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Feng Min Zhang and her husband, Li Wei Zhang, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying them application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s denial of petitioners’ withholding of removal claim because Feng Min established that she suffered a forced abortion when she was coerced into having an abortion to keep her job. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.2003) (abortion was forced where officials reduced petitioner’s wages and threatened to fire her and impose fines). Further, the agency improperly required corroboration after finding Feng Min credible. See Katana v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting BIA’s finding that applicant did not meet his burden of proof because he failed to provide documentary evidence to corroborate his credible testimony).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review with respect to withholding of removal and remand Feng Min’s claim with instructions that she be granted withholding of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B); Tang v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 987, 988 (9th Cir.2007) (“victims of forced abortion ... are statutorily entitled to withholding of removal”), and remand Li Wei’s claim for the agency to consider whether he established “other resistance” to the coercive population control program, see Jiang v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1099, 1106-08 (9th Cir.2010).

In addition, the agency did not consider whether Feng Min’s forced abortion constituted torture, so we grant the petition with respect to the CAT claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *657 ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 F. App'x 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feng-min-zhang-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack