BINGYING AN, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: August 10, 2020
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Neelam Ihsanullah, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DrOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Bingying An, 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 (“IJ”) 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.
As to asylum and withholding of removal, the record compels the conclusion that the cumulative harm An suffered in China rose to the level of persecution. See id. 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 An'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).
In his opening brief, An does not challenge the BIA's determination that he did not preserve for appeal the IJ's denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to relief under CAT.
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.