Muye Zhu v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUYE ZHU, No. 18-71497
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-179-211
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Muye Zhu, 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
factual findings. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We
dismiss in part, grant in part, and deny in part the petition for review, and we
remand.
We do not consider the materials Zhu references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhu’s contentions that he was persecuted on
account of an imputed political opinion. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to
the agency).
As to asylum and withholding of removal, the record compels the conclusion
that the cumulative harm Zhu suffered in China rose to the level of persecution.
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 Zhu’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 (2002) (per curiam).
2 18-71497
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Zhu
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).
Zhu’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part;
DENIED in part; REMANDED.
3 18-71497