N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HONGLIANG ZHAO,

Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73441 Age n c y No. A201-213-371
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 4, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M c KEOW N, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r Honglia

ng Zha o, a

native and c itiz e n

of C hina , pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) dism issa l of his a ppe a l from
an Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) fina l orde r of re m o va l . Zha o a rgue s the B IA e rre d in de ny ing his a

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion 

# FIL ED AUG 19 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8

U.S.C . § 1252. W e grant the pe tition with re spe c t to Zha o’ s a sy lum and withholding of rem o v a l c la im s, a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. W e de ny the pe tition with re spe c t to his re q ue st for prote c tion unde r C AT. W e re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision in its e ntire ty and the IJ’ s de c ision to the
e xte nt it wa s a d opte d by

the B IA. Garc ia-Martine z v . Se s sions , 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th C ir. 2018). W e re vie w the a ge n c y ’ s fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l
e vide nc e an d its le ga l c onc lusions denovo. Bringas-Rodrigue z v . Se ssions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc ) (c ita t ions omitte d). Substa

ntia l e vide nc e m e ans the fa c tua l finding is “ supporte d by re a sona ble , substa

ntia l, a nd proba tive
e vide nc e in the re c ord.” Me lk onian v . Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th C ir. 2003). Unde r this sta

nda rd, we “ m ay

only re ve rse the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i nation whe re ‘ the e v ide nc e c om

pe ls a c ontra ry c onc lusion from

tha t a d opte d by

the B IA.’ ” Parada v . Se

s sions , 902 F.3d 901, 908–09 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Afriy ie
v . Holde r , 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th C ir. 2010)). 1. The a ge n c y ’ s finding tha t Zha o did not suffer pa s t pe rse c ution is not supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . The IJ found Zha o c re dible , but de t e rm i ne d tha t Zha o’ s m istre atm e nt did not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. “ W e look a t the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s in de c iding whe the r a finding of pe rse c ution is
2c om

pe lle d.” Guo v . Ashc roft , 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th C i r. 2004). Zha o wa s be ate n a nd kic ke d by the birth c ontrol a uthoritie s, re sulting in injurie s tha t re quire d
m e dic a l atte ntion. Hewa s the n de ta ine d by the polic e for a

we e k a nd thre ate ne d with furthe r de te ntion. Thetota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s c om pe ls a finding tha

t Zha o wa s pe rse c ute d. Se e id. Zha o’ s situa tion is distinguisha

ble from tha t of the pe titione r in Gu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014 (9th C ir. 2006), on whic h both theIJ
and B IA re lie d. Unlike G u , Zha o re c e ive d m e dic a l tre atm e nt for the injurie s he suffe re d, a

nd wa s subse que ntly

de ta i ne d for a

we e k. B e c a use the re c ord c o m

pe ls a c onc lusion tha

t Zha o wa s subje c te d to pa st pe rse c ution, wegrant the pe tition with re spe c t to thea s y lum a p plic ation a

nd
re m and for a

de te rm i nation of whe the r this pe rse c ution wa s “ on a c c ount of” a prote c te d ground, a

nd if so, whe the r the gove rnm e nt c an re but the pre s um ption tha t Zha o ha s a

n obje c tive ly

we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 208.13(b)(1). 2. The IJ a lso de nie d Zha o’ s a pplic at ion for withholding of re m ova l , e xpla ining tha

t sinc e he ha d fa i le d to qua lify for a sy lum , he ne c e ssa

rily “ fa ile d to
satisfy the m ore stringe nt c le a

r proba bility of pe rse c ution sta

n da rd re quire d for withholding of rem o v a l.” The B IA a ffirm e d this de c ision.

3Howe v e r, be c a use the re c ord c om

pe l s the c onc lusion tha

t Zha o e xp e rie nc e d pa st pe rse c ution, he m ay

be pre sum e d e ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l if it is de te rm i ne d tha

t this pe rse c ution wa s on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se e Vitug
v . Holde r , 723 F.3d 1056, 1064 (9th C ir. 2013); 8 U.S.C
. § 1231(b)(3). W e the re fore grant Zha o ’ s pe tition with re ga rd to his withholding of re m ova l c la im

and
re m and to theB IA to de t e rm i ne whe the r his pe rse c ution wa s on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground a nd if so, whe the r the gove rnm e nt c an m e e t its burde n of re butta l. Se e Mihale v

v . Ashc roft , 388 F.3d 722, 731 (9th C ir. 2004) 3. Although the e v ide n c e in the re c ord c om pe ls a finding tha

t Zha o suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution, thee v ide nc e doe s not de m o nstra te tha t it is more like ly

tha n not that Zha o will betorture d if re t urne d to C hina . Thus, C AT re lie f is not a p propria t e . Se e Ahme d v . K

e isle r , 504 F.3d 1183, 1200 (9th C ir. 2007); 8 C .F.R
. § 208.16(c )(2). B e c a

use substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s de t e rm i nation tha

t Zha o is not e l igible for C AT re lie f, we de ny the pe tition with re spe c t to Zha o’ s a pplic ation for C AT re l i e f.

G RANT E D in par t, DE NIE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D forfur the r pr oc e e dings.

4