Yongsheng Han v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Yongsheng Han v. Eric Holder, Jr.

584 F. App'x 677

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 25, 2014

Docket12-72624

StatusUnpublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 677 (Yongsheng Han v. Eric 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

Yongsheng Han v. Eric Holder, Jr., 584 F. App'x 677 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Yongsheng Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 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. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Han’s CAT claim because Han failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1026 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Han failed to establish his experiences in China rose to the level of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir.2006) (record did not compel the finding that petitioner suffered past persecution). Substantial evidence, however, does not support the agency’s finding that Han failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. See Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1017-20 (9th Cir.2011) (record compelled finding a central reason for petitioner’s mistreatment was his actual or imputed political opinion). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Han’s asylum and withholding of removal claims for the agency to determine whether Han has a well-founded fear of future persecution and/or faces a clear probability of future persecution. See 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 **

Yongsheng Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 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. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Han’s CAT claim because Han failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1026 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Han failed to establish his experiences in China rose to the level of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir.2006) (record did not compel the finding that petitioner suffered past persecution). Substantial evidence, however, does not support the agency’s finding that Han failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. See Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1017-20 (9th Cir.2011) (record compelled finding a central reason for petitioner’s mistreatment was his actual or imputed political opinion). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Han’s asylum and withholding of removal claims for the agency to determine whether Han has a well-founded fear of future persecution and/or faces a clear probability of future persecution. See 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)

584 F. App'x 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yongsheng-han-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack