Junsong Wang v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNSONG WANG, No. 15-73212
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-266-234
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.
Junsong Wang, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
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 Wang suffered in China rose to the level of persecution.
See id. at 1213-17 (finding petitioner suffered harm rising to the level of
persecution 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
Wang’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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because the
record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not Wang would
be tortured 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).
Wang’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.
2 15-73212