United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-60642 

____________ 

Jianrong Wong, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals 

Agency No. A208 597 413 

______________________________ 

Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

 Jianrong Wong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the convention against torture (“CAT”). Because the BIA erred in applying Ninth Circuit precedent 

to Wong’s case, we VACATE the BIA’s denial of Wong’s applications and 

REMAND the case with instructions. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 30, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-60642 Document: 00517050008 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
No. 22-60642 

2 

I. 

Wong entered the United States on September 25, 2015, in Southern 

California. Upon being apprehended, he immediately expressed fear of 

returning to China and was given a credible fear interview. The Department 

of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a Notice to Appear alleging that 

Wong was subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as 

an immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, was not in 

possession of a valid entry document. On November 25, 2015, Wong 

appeared, with counsel, at the Los Angeles Immigration Court, and admitted 

the allegations in the Notice. On December 3, 2015, Wong timely filed an I589 asylum application. The asylum claim was based on Wong’s persecution 

for practicing his religion in China. 

The Immigration Judge held a removal hearing on February 1, 2016. 

Wong testified that he was Christian, started practicing his religion on March 

7, 2015, and attended registered church gatherings on five occasions while in 

China. He testified that, at the urge of his friend, he also attended an 

unregistered “house” church gathering on April 13, 2015. Wong claims that, 

while at the gathering, they were reading the Bible and praying when the 

police kicked in the door and stated that Wong and the others were engaging 

in illegal activities of an evil cult. Wong testified that he and the others were 

arrested and that he was detained, slapped, interrogated, had light shined in 

his eyes, and was locked in a small room where the temperature was turned 

very low. He was held overnight. The next day his parents had to pay 5,000 

RMBs for his release. He was warned by police that he would be sentenced 

to jail if he continued to attend unregistered religious gatherings. Wong 

testified that the cold temperatures in detention led him to become ill and 

that he sought medical treatment. Wong testified that, after reporting to the 

police for seven weeks, he was forced to flee to another area of China and 

eventually left China for the United States. 

Case: 22-60642 Document: 00517050008 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
No. 22-60642 

3 

The IJ denied Wong’s applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under CAT on May 9, 2016. Wong timely appealed to the 

BIA, which remanded the case to the IJ for further consideration of Wong’s 

past persecution claim. The BIA also noted that the IJ did not make a 

credibility finding and Wong, therefore, has a rebuttable presumption of 

credibility on appeal. Following remand, the IJ granted Wong bond. Wong 

subsequently moved to Oklahoma and the DHS filed a motion to change 

venue from Los Angeles to Dallas, Texas.1

 The IJ granted DHS’s motion to 

change venue. 

 A master hearing was held at the Dallas Immigration Court on October 11, 2017. Wong, through counsel, stated that he did not believe that further testimony was needed and that both pre- and post-remand evidence existed in the record. The parties also discussed with the Dallas IJ transferring 

the case back to Los Angeles. The Dallas IJ agreed to speak with the court 

administrator about transferring the case. 

The case was never transferred back to Los Angeles and, on October 

11, 2018, the Dallas IJ denied Wong’s applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and CAT protection. The Dallas IJ dropped the following footnote 

in her opinion: 

Here, jurisdiction remains with the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, although venue was changed from the Los Angeles 

Immigration Court to the Dallas Immigration Court. “The 

petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for 

the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed 

the proceedings.” INA § 242(b)(2). Although the BIA 

remanded the record and the Court, who is under jurisdiction 

_____________________ 

1

 Where Wong lives in Oklahoma is under the administrative control of the Dallas 

Immigration Court. 

Case: 22-60642 Document: 00517050008 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
No. 22-60642 

4 

of the Fifth Circuit, has been assigned the case, an IJ in Los 

Angeles “completed the proceedings” in Los Angeles, California, by 

accepting evidence into the record, including [Wong’s] 

testimony, and rendering an oral decision on the merits of this 

case. Moreover, the parties agreed post-remand that no further 

hearing on the merits is necessary and that the Court may 

render its decision on the existing record, which includes postremand evidence of updated country conditions. Thus, the 

Court finds that jurisdiction remains in the Ninth Circuit. See, 

e.g., Bibiano v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 966, 971-73 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(holding that, consistent with nine other federal circuits, 

including the Fifth Circuit, INA § 242(b)(2), requiring petition 

for review of orders of removal be filed with the court of 

appeals for the judicial circuit in which the IJ completed the 

proceedings, is a non-jurisdictional venue provision, and thus, 

the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim 

even if venue was proper in the Eleventh Circuit). Accordingly, 

the Court will apply Ninth Circuit law in rendering its decision 

regarding [Wong’s] applications for relief. 

ROA.82 n.1 (emphasis added). As noted above, the Dallas IJ applied Ninth 

Circuit precedent to her opinion. The Dallas IJ denied Wong’s applications

based on an adverse credibility determination and, in the alternative, 

presuming Wong was credible, on the merits. 

Wong appealed the decision to the BIA, which dismissed the appeal 

on November 18, 2022. The BIA applied Ninth Circuit precedent and noted 

that “precedent decisions within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit remain 

controlling this case.” ROA.7 n.2. The BIA did not make a ruling on Wong’s 

credibility, and assumed for the purpose of the decision he was credible. The 

BIA determined: (1) Wong’s harm that he suffered did not rise to the level of 

past persecution; (2) Wong was not singled out for persecution on account of 

any protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act upon 

return to China; (3) the evidence did not demonstrate that there was a pattern 

Case: 22-60642 Document: 00517050008 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
No. 22-60642 

5 

or practice in persecution of people similarly situated to Wong throughout 

the country of China; and (4) with regards to the claim for protection under 

CAT, Wong did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will 

be tortured upon return to China. The BIA therefore dismissed Wong’s 

appeal. Wong now seeks review of that decision. 

II. 

On appeal to this court, and aside from the merits, Wong concedes 

venue is proper. He does claim, however, that the Dallas IJ and BIA 

concluded that Ninth Circuit precedent is controlling because the case was 

initiated and heard in Los Angeles, and the parties agreed that venue should 

remain in the Ninth Circuit. Wong thus applies Ninth Circuit precedent 

throughout his opening brief. Citing Adeeko v. Garland, 3 F.4th 741, 746 (5th 

Cir. 2021), DHS does not contest venue. DHS does argue, however, that the 

correct law is that of the Fifth Circuit. In reply, Wong claims that Adeeko is 

distinguishable since it involved a legal question rather than application of the 

evidentiary standard of review, but asserts that under either circuit, remand 

is warranted. 

 The governing venue statute provides that judicial review of a final 

order of removal “shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial 

circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings.” 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(b)(2) (emphasis added). This circuit and others interpret Section 

1252(b)(2) as a non-jurisdictional venue provision. Jama v. Gonzalez, 431 

F.3d 230, 233 n.3 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Yang You Lee v. Lynch, 791 

F.3d 1261, 1263-64 (10th Cir. 2015); Thiam v. Holder, 677 F.3d 299, 302 (6th 

Cir. 2012); Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 121 (4th Cir. 2011); Avila v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 560 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Khouzam v. 

Att’y Gen., 549 F.3d 235, 249 (3d Cir. 2008); Moreno-Bravo v. Gonzalez, 463 

F.3d 253, 258-62 (2d Cir. 2006); Georcely v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 45, 49 (1st Cir. 

Case: 22-60642 Document: 00517050008 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
No. 22-60642 

6 

2004); Nwaokolo v. I.N.S., 314 F.3d 303, 306 n.2 (7th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). 

Both the Dallas IJ and the BIA concluded that the Ninth Circuit was the 

proper venue—although they incorrectly referred to jurisdiction—and the 

BIA erroneously stated that venue had been transferred back to Los Angeles. 

The Dallas IJ reasoned that the “IJ in Los Angeles ‘completed the 

proceedings’ in Los Angeles, California.” ROA.82 n.1. The BIA mentioned 

that the “[p]roceedings in this case were initiated and the merits hearing was 

conducted in Los Angeles, California, within the jurisdiction of the [Ninth 

Circuit].” ROA.7 n.2. But whether venue is proper turns on where the 

proceedings were completed. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). 

 Reading the plain text of Section 1252(b)(2), “completed the 

proceedings” connotes where the final order was issued.2

 In other words, 

here, the IJ “completed the proceedings” in Dallas. The Tenth Circuit’s 

decision of Yang You Lee is persuasive because the court there analyzed 

where the IJ held the final hearing (Dallas), where the petitioner and the 

government’s representation physically appeared for the final hearing 

(Dallas), and that the IJ issued his final order from the Dallas Immigration 

Court. 791 F.3d at 1264. While the case commenced in Los Angeles, see 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.14(a), the IJ transferred it to Dallas. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b). 

Thus, this case is properly before this court. This holding aligns with other 

circuits’ reasoning. See, e.g., Bazile v. Garland, 76 F.4th 5, 14 (1st Cir. 2023); 

Sarr v. Garland, 50 F.4th 326, 332 (2d Cir. 2022). 

Because venue is proper in this circuit, our precedent applies—not the 

Ninth Circuit’s precedent. Peters v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 302, 305 n.2 (5th Cir. 

_____________________ 

2 Complete, Merriam-Webster.com; https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/complete (last visited Dec. 11, 2023) (defined as “to bring to an 

end . . . to make whole”). 

Case: 22-60642 Document: 00517050008 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
No. 22-60642 

7 

2004) (“only this circuit’s precedents (and those of the Supreme Court) bind 

the BIA when considering an appeal from an immigration judge in the Fifth 

Circuit”). The BIA applied the wrong legal standard. In such cases, the 

Supreme Court instructs courts to remand the matter back to the agency that 

made the legal error in its opinion. Calcutt v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 598 U.S. 

623, 629 (2023) (per curiam) (“[I]f the grounds propounded by the agency 

for its decision ‘are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm 

the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more 

adequate or proper basis.’”) (citing Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 

332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)). 

The BIA’s denial of Wong’s applications is therefore VACATED

and the case is REMANDED. The BIA is directed to apply Fifth Circuit 

precedent consistent with this opinion. 

Case: 22-60642 Document: 00517050008 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/30/2024