BINGYING AN V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 15-72794 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BINGYING AN, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72794 Agency No. A088-285-457 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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 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 (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. 2 15-72794
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
