Zhihong an v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Zhihong an v. Loretta E. Lynch

669 F. App'x 441

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 2016

Docket13-73943

StatusUnpublished

This text of 669 F. App'x 441 (Zhihong an 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

Zhihong an v. Loretta E. Lynch, 669 F. App'x 441 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Zhihong An, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA affirmed the denial of An’s claims based on a failure to corroborate. The agency, however, made its corroboration findings without applying the notice and opportunity to explain requirements set forth in Ren v. Holder, relying instead on a Ninth Circuit, decision that is no longer good law. See Oshodi v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2012), withdrawn by court order, 678 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, we grant An’s petition for review, and remand for the agency to reconsider *442 his claims in light of Ren, and to consider the impact, if any, of the court’s intervening decisions in Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) and Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016). 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Zhihong An, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2011). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA affirmed the denial of An’s claims based on a failure to corroborate. The agency, however, made its corroboration findings without applying the notice and opportunity to explain requirements set forth in Ren v. Holder, relying instead on a Ninth Circuit, decision that is no longer good law. See Oshodi v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2012), withdrawn by court order, 678 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, we grant An’s petition for review, and remand for the agency to reconsider *442 his claims in light of Ren, and to consider the impact, if any, of the court’s intervening decisions in Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) and Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016). 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 F. App'x 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zhihong-an-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack