T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e D ona l d E . W a l t e r , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge ** * f orW e s t e rn L oui s i a na , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T WE I J I E Z HA O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 75433 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 442- 199 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J ul y2, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: B . F L E T C H E R and P A E Z , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W A L T E R , D i stri ct Judg e. *** W e i j i e Z ha o ( “ Z ha o” ) , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an 

# FI LED JU L 06 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i s ap p l i c a t i o n s f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, a n d r e lie f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( “C A T ” ) . H ow e ve r , on appe a l Z ha o onl y r a i s e s hi s a s y l um c l a i m . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . R e v ie w in g f o rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , Zehat ye v. G on zales , 453 F . 3d 1182, 1184- 85 ( 9th C i r . 2006) , w e gr a ntthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. T he P e t i t i one ra r gue s tha ti f he r e turns t o C hi nahe w i l l f a c e pe r s e c ut i on f

or un kn ow i ng l y gi vi ng F al un G on g p ra ct i t i on er s apl ac e t o m ee ti n h i s hom e. B ef ore the IJ , Z hao argued thathe suff er ed pastpers ec ut i on bu ton appeal he abando ned th a t a r g u m e n t. Z h a o c o n tin u e s to c o n te n d th a t if h e r e tu rn s to C h in ah e h a s aw e llfoun ded fearof future pers ec ut i on . T he IJdi d n otdo ub tZ hao’ s s ubj ec t i ve fe ar bu tfoun d thathe di d n otm ee tthe obj ec t i ve fe arre qu i re m ent . Z hao con ce des that he i s nota m em ber of F al un G on g. T he IJfoun d, and the B IA af fi rm ed, thatZ hao c a n a voi d f

utur e pe r s e c ut i on by turni ng hi m s e l f i n t o C hi ne s e author i t i e s a nd ab s o lv in g h im s e lf

. Z ha o i s e l i gi bl e f

ora s y l um i f

he c a n de m ons tr a t e tha the i s “ unabl e or un w i l l i ng t o return t o . . . [hi s] coun trybecause of per se cut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n a p ar ti cu lar s o cial g ro u p , o r p o li ti ca l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( A ). “A3

f i ndi ng of a‘ w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on’ r e qui r e s both as how i ng of

‘ subj ec t i vel y genui ne’ and ‘ obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e’ fe ar . ” Zha o v. Mukasey , 540 F . 3d 10 27 , 10 29 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( c i t i n gLa dh a v . I NS , 2 1 5 F .3 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 7 ( 9 th C i r . 2000) ( abr oga t e d on othe rgr ounds ) ) . Z ha o t e s t i f i e d tha the f

e a r s a rr e s ta nd i nc a r c e r a t i on i n al aborc a m p upon r e turni ng t o C hi na , a nd thus s a t i s f i e d the s u b je c tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f

th e w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a rr e q u ir e m e n t. See Zho u v. G on zales , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 7 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). B ecau se Z h ao h as n o tsu ffered p ast pe r s e c ut i on, he m us ts a t i s f y the obj e c t i ve c om pone nt“ byas how i ng of ‘ agood re as on t o fear f

uture pers ec ut i on ’ base d o n ‘ cr edi bl e, di re ct , and speci fi c e vi dence in th e r ec o rd o f f

ac ts th at w o u ldsu p p o rt a r ea so n ab le fe aro f p er se cu ti o n .’ ” Zhao , 540 F . 3d a t1029 ( quot i ng L adha , 2 1 5 F .3 d a t 8 9 7 ) . T h e N in th C ir c u it h a s h e ld th a t ate n p e r c e n t c h a n c e o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n m a yb e e n o u g h to e s tab lis h aw e llf o u n d e d f e a r . Al

- H

a r b iv . I NS , 24 2 F . 3d 88 2, 88 8 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). T hi s i s am uch m or e l e ni e nts t a nda r d tha n the “ pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e ” s t a nda r d us e d by th e IJ. T he re cord cl earl y dem on stra t es thatZ hao face s a tl ea sta t en perce ntchance o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . A c c o r d in g to Z h a o , th e F a lu n G o n g m e m b e r s f o u n d in h is apartm entw er e s entt o a l abor camp , and ever s i nce O ct ob er6, 20 03 , the po l i ce have returned t o h i s f

ather’ s hou se abou ton ce a w ee k l oo ki ng for hi m . Z hao4

t e s t i f i e d tha tthe pol i c e t ol d Z ha o’ s f a the rtha tZ ha o ha d a l l ow e d F a l un G ong p r a c titio n e r s to u s e h is h o u s e a n d th a t Z h a o s h o u ld r e tu rn to S h a n g h a i a n d r e p o rt to the m . A l s o t a ki ng i nt o a c c ountthe S t a t e D e pa rtm e ntC ountryR e port s on C hi na th a t d e ta il th e p e r s e c u tio n o f F a lu n G o n g a n d its s u p p o rte r s , w e a r e le f t w ith little doubttha tZ ha o ha s a n obj e c t i ve l yr e a s onabl e f e a rtha the w i l l be a rr e s t e d, s e ntt o a l aborc a m p, a nd abus e d by pol i c e i f he r e turns t o C hi na . S uc h ha r s h tr e a tm e nt q u a lif ie s a s p e r s e c u tio n . Se e Zhou , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 8 6 8 ; Zh a n gv . A s h c r o ft , 388 F . 3d 7 1 3 , 7 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . F urther, the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng thatZ hao cou l d avo i d p er se cut i on by expl ai ni ng that he i s nota m em ber of F al un G on g t o the C hi nese po l i ce i s i ncon si st entw i th sett l ed la w h o ld in g th a t im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n is av a lidb a s is f o rr e lie f . Se e, e .g ., Lo p ez - G a la r

z a v . I NS , 9 9 F .3 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). “F o ll o w in g th e B o ar d ’s lin e o f r e a s o n in g , im p u te d p o litic a l o p in io n c o u ld n e v e rp r o v id e ab a s is f o rr e lie f . A ny vi c t i m w oul d s i m pl y c orr e c thi s pe r s e c ut or ’ s m i s t a ke , a nd s uf f e rthe pers ec ut i on for unp rot ec t ed re as on s. ” Ca n a s - Seg o v i a v . I NS , 970 F . 2d 599, 602 (9th C i r. 19 92 ). W e gr a ntZ ha o’ s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w . B e c aus e Z ha o i s e l i gi bl e f ora s y l um and ent i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , w e r em and thi s c as e s o thatthe A tt orney G e n e r a l m a y e x e r c is e h is d is c r e tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) a s to w h e th e rto5

gr a nta s y l um , a nd s o tha tthe B I A c a n e nt e rthe appr opr i a t e or de rf orw i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l. Se e Zhou , 437 F . 3d a t871. P E T I T I ON GR AN T E D, a n d R E MAND E D.