N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DANIEL LIONG, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-71066 Age n c y No. A096-362-473 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

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Danie l Liong, a

native an d c itiz e n of Indone sia , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED DEC 5 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. W a k k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de ny

in pa rt a nd gra nt in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w, a nd we re m and. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Liong fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not tha t he will betorture d by or with the a c quie sc e nc e of gove rnm e nt offic ia ls if re t urne d to Indone sia . Se e id. at 1068. W e re je c t Liong’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA fa ile d to prope rly e va luate the e vide nc e . Thus, we de ny the pe tition a s to Liong’ s C AT c l a im . W ith re spe c t to Liong’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im , howe ve r, substa ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the B IA’ s finding tha

t the inc i de nts of m istre at m e nt Liong pe rsona lly

e xpe rie nc e d did not rise

to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. S e e C hand v . IN S , 222 F.3d 1066, 1073-75 (9th C ir. 2000) (re c ord c om p e lle d finding of pe rse c ution whe re pe t i tione r suffe re d m ultiple inc ide nts of phy s ic a l ha rm and othe r kinds of ha

rdship a t va rious tim e s ove r a pe riod of y e ars). Thus, we grant the pe tition for re vie w a

nd hold tha

t Liong suffe re d ha

rm rising to the

le ve l of pe rse c ution. W e re m an d to theB IA to a ddre s s a ny othe r issue s re ga

rding Liong’ s withholding of rem o v a l c la im and, if ne c e s sa

ry , to re m and to theIJ for furthe r proc e e dings. Se e IN

S v . Ve n tura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ); V

itug v . Holde r , 723 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th C ir. 2013) (B IA m ay not e nga ge in its own 1 3 - 7 1 0 6 6 2fa c t finding). W e note tha t, c ontra ry to the B IA’ s a sse rtion, Liong’ s c a se is not gove rne d by the REAL ID Ac t. In light of our c onc lusions, wedo not re a c h Liong’ s othe r argum e nts re ga rding his withholding of re m ova l c la im . The gove rnm e n t sha ll be ar the c osts for this petition for re vie w. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; RE M A NDE D.

1 3 - 7 1 0 6 6 3