ZHIHONG AN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73943 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZHIHONG AN, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-73943 Agency No. A087-698-549 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Zhihong An, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2011). We grant the petition for review and remand. The BIA affirmed the denial of An’s claims based on a failure to corroborate. The agency, however, made its corroboration findings without applying the notice and opportunity to explain requirements set forth in Ren v. Holder, relying instead on a Ninth Circuit decision that is no longer good law. See Oshodi v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2012), withdrawn by court order, 678 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, we grant An’s petition for review, and remand for the agency to reconsider his claims in light of Ren, and to consider the impact, if any, of the court’s intervening decisions in Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) and Bhattarai v. Lynch, No. 12-74062, 2016 WL 4527559 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2016). See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 13-73943

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.