Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0717-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XUE YUN LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73686.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed July 29, 2010.
    David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Hillel Smith, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xue Yun Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Lin v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 1131, 1133 (9th Cir.2007), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.

Lin credibly testified she went into hiding for.three months and escaped China to avoid a forced abortion on account of her status as a pregnant, single, underage woman. She gave birth shortly after arriving in this country. Her boyfriend was imprisoned for this offense, and when released, also escaped China. A reasonable fact finder would be compelled to .conclude that Lin suffered past persecution on account of her resistance to China’s coercive population control program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B); Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand for the BIA, which shall, on behalf of the Attorney General, exercise discretion regarding whether to grant asylum. See Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1160-61 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc). We also grant and remand for further proceedings on whether Lin is eligible for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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.