Wei GUO, aka Bin Guo, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: July 21, 2020
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Wei Guo, Pro Se Bernard Joseph, Gary J. Newkirk, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Wei Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and we remand.
We do not consider the materials Guo references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court's review is limited to the administrative record)
The record compels the conclusion that the cumulative harm Guo suffered in China rose to the level of persecution. See Guo, 897 F.3d at 1213-17 (finding petitioner suffered past persecution because of his religious beliefs where he was detained, beaten, forced to sign a document promising not to attend a home church, and required to report to the police weekly); see also Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (totality of the circumstances compelled finding of persecution). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Guo's asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Guo, 897 F.3d at 1217; see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Guo failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Guo, 897 F.3d at 1217 (insufficient likelihood of torture).
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.