Yong Liu v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Yong Liu v. Loretta E. Lynch

609 F. App'x 406

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2015

Docket13-73004

StatusUnpublished

This text of 609 F. App'x 406 (Yong Liu v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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

Yong Liu v. Loretta E. Lynch, 609 F. App'x 406 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Yong Bin Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for .asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA found that even if Liu’s asylum application was timely, his testimony was credible, and that he corroborated his testimony, Liu failed to establish his experiences in China rose to the level of persecution. In reaching this determination, the BIA did not consider all of Liu’s experiences, including the fine levied against him and his wife’s forced abortion. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.2014) (explaining that a spouse’s forced abortion is part of petitioner’s claim of past persecution); see also Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1998) (“The key question is whether, looking at the cumulative effect of all the incidents a petitioner has suffered, the treatment [he or] she *407 received rises to the level of persecution.”). Thus, we remand Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to the BIA 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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Yong Bin Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for .asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA found that even if Liu’s asylum application was timely, his testimony was credible, and that he corroborated his testimony, Liu failed to establish his experiences in China rose to the level of persecution. In reaching this determination, the BIA did not consider all of Liu’s experiences, including the fine levied against him and his wife’s forced abortion. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.2014) (explaining that a spouse’s forced abortion is part of petitioner’s claim of past persecution); see also Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.1998) (“The key question is whether, looking at the cumulative effect of all the incidents a petitioner has suffered, the treatment [he or] she *407 received rises to the level of persecution.”). Thus, we remand Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to the BIA 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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 F. App'x 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yong-liu-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack