Zhihui Guo v. Sessions, No. 15-70617 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. The panel held that the Chinese police prevented petitioner from practicing his faith and did so through coercive means. In this case, petitioner suffered physical mistreatment that caused him to seek medical attention and the police effectively prevented him from practicing his religion and living a Christian life. Therefore, petitioner suffered ongoing harm which, under circuit precedent, compelled a finding of past persecution. The panel remanded for the BIA to apply the rebuttable presumption that petitioner will experience further persecution if returned to China. However, the panel held that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of torture.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted a petition for review as to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Zhihui Guo’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and denied the petition as to protection under the Convention against Torture. Police arrested Guo for attending a Christian “home church,” beat him with a baton and detained him for two days, forbade him from attending his home church, and required him to report to the police weekly to verify his compliance. The panel held that this evidence compelled the conclusion that Guo suffered past persecution. The panel explained that in addition to the physical mistreatment, which caused Guo to seek medical attention, the police effectively prevented Guo from practicing his religion and living a Christian life. The panel remanded Guo’s asylum and withholding claims for the Board to apply the rebuttable presumption that Guo will experience further persecution if returned to China. The panel held that Guo failed to establish a clear probability of torture. GUO V. SESSIONS 3
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.