Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0677-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bei LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71392.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 24, 2014.
    Bei Lin, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Nehal Kama-ni, Aric Allan Anderson, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bei Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review, and remand.

In upholding the IJ’s denial of relief, the BIA found that, even if credible, Lin failed to submit reasonable corroboration such as a letter or affidavit from his father or Chinese pastor, and reasonable corroboration of his church attendance in the United States. In reaching these conclusions, the BIA did not have the benefit of the court’s intervening decision in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, we grant the petition for review, and remand Lin’s claims to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of our conclusion we do not reach Lin’s remaining contentions, including his challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.