WEI LI V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-70051 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEI LI, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70051 Agency No. A088-457-575 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 11, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: BOGGS,*** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Wei Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the order of an * 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). *** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying an application for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for reconsideration in light of our intervening opinion in Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2018). Guo also concerned a Christian Chinese national, and we granted a petition for review of the BIA’s decision denying the petitioner’s asylum application. Id. at 1217. We concluded, based on similar (albeit not identical) evidence, that “the scope and seriousness of the government’s practices” compelled a finding of past religious persecution. Id. at 1211–12, 1215–16. We also distinguished Guo’s circumstances from those in Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2006), in which we denied a petition for review from a Chinese Christian claiming religious persecution, id. at 1022. The government argues that this case is controlled by Gu, not Guo. Because the BIA did not have the benefit of Guo when it rendered its decision, we remand to allow the BIA to address in the first instance the application of Guo to Li’s asylum application. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 1 Li also applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA found that Li waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection, and Li’s petition for review does not argue otherwise. 2
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.
