Guizhen Chen v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Guizhen Chen v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

439 F. App'x 594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 2011

Docket08-71697

StatusUnpublished

This text of 439 F. App'x 594 (Guizhen Chen v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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

Guizhen Chen v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 439 F. App'x 594 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Guizhen Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 protection under the Convention Against *595 Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand.

Chen does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that her application for asylum was untimely. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to her asylum claim.

Chen contends local family planning authorities subjected her to insertion of an IUD, she later fled her home town to avoid sterilization by the same family planning authorities, and contends, as she did before the BIA, she was forced to abort her third pregnancy due to continuing threats of sterilization. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.2003) (finding that petitioner “established past persecution through two forced abortions and an IUD insertion”). In evaluating her claim, the BIA did not address Chen’s contention that the threat of forced sterilization and the abortion of her third pregnancy constituted past persecution. Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th Cir.2009) (remanding where BIA failed to address petitioner’s claim); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Guizhen Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 protection under the Convention Against *595 Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand.

Chen does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that her application for asylum was untimely. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to her asylum claim.

Chen contends local family planning authorities subjected her to insertion of an IUD, she later fled her home town to avoid sterilization by the same family planning authorities, and contends, as she did before the BIA, she was forced to abort her third pregnancy due to continuing threats of sterilization. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.2003) (finding that petitioner “established past persecution through two forced abortions and an IUD insertion”). In evaluating her claim, the BIA did not address Chen’s contention that the threat of forced sterilization and the abortion of her third pregnancy constituted past persecution. Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th Cir.2009) (remanding where BIA failed to address petitioner’s claim); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guizhen-chen-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack