Jiang Guan v. Barr, No. 17-71966 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CasePetitioner sought review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel denied the petition as to petitioner's claims for asylum and withholding of removal, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that petitioner committed a serious nonpolitical offense and was therefore statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. However, the panel granted the petition in regard to plaintiff's claim for relief under CAT, holding that the IJ failed to consider evidence from petitioner's church that he is a practicing Christian and evidence from the country reports that Christians are persecuted and tortured in China.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied Guan Chiang’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that there were serious reasons for believing he committed a serious nonpolitical crime, and granted in part the petition as to the Board’s denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanded. The panel held that there were serious reasons to believe that Guan committed a serious nonpolitical crime, where he was involved in a financial scheme embezzling public funds. The panel held that Guan was therefore statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. As to the issue of whether Guan’s crime was nonpolitical, the panel held that Guan did not rebut the presumption that his embezzlement crime was a serious nonpolitical crime because he failed to establish that it had a political aspect or objective, and admitted that his involvement in the scheme stemmed from purely economic reasons. Rejecting Guan’s contention that his crime was political in nature because the accusations against him were pretextual, the panel explained that Guan conflated a politically motivated prosecution with a politically motivated crime.
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.