N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
XIAO GUO, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71868 Age n c y No. A088-335-868
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 28, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED
SEP 25 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.B e fore : W . FLETC HER a nd IKUTA, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd FR EUDENTHAL, ** C hie f Distric t

Judge
. Pe titione r Xia oping Guo, a C hristia n a nd na tive a nd c i tiz e n of t h e Pe ople ’ s R e public of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from a n im

m igra tion judge ’s d eci s ion de ny ing his
a pplic a tions for a s yl u m , 8 U .S .C
. § 1158, w i thholding of re m o va l unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1231(b)(3), a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion A ga inst Torture (“ C AT” ), 8 C .F.R
. §§ 1208.16(c ), 1208.18(a ). W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. W e de ny the pe tition with re spe c t to the B IA’ s de nia l of e ligibility for a sy lum a nd t he de nia l of prote c tion unde r C AT. W e g ra nt the pe tition with re spe c t to the d e nia l of withholding of re m ova l, a nd we re m a n d in light of the ne w sta nda rd a nnounc e d in the inte rve ning
c a se of Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351 (9th C ir. 2017). W e c onc l ude substa

n tia l e vide n c e supports the Im m igra t ion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) fa c t ua l findings de ny ing Guo’ s a sy lum a pplic a tion, n a m e ly t

ha t he fa i le d to e sta

blish he wa s pe rse c ute d, or ha d a we l l-founde d fe a r of pe rse c ution, on a c c ount of re ligion,
a nti-gove rnm e nt politic a l opinion re ga rding the new cr e m a tion la w, or a ny othe r prote c te d ground. Padilla

- M a r t i n e z v . Holde r , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th C ir. 2014). The fa c ts a re u ndispute d tha t: (1) Guo did n ot know why he wa s a rre ste d, de ta ine d a n d

* * The Honora

ble Na nc y Fre ude n tha l, C hie f Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of W

y om ing, sitting by

de signa tion. 2be a te n; (2) polic e a rre ste d only pe ople wh o f i e rc e ly re siste d the l a wful polic e
a uthority in re m oving the de c e d e nt’ s body ; (3) none of t he othe r C hristia

ns a tte nding the buria l we re a rre ste d; a nd (4 ) Guo’ s m othe r re m a ins unha rm e d in the ir na tive
c ountry , de spite he r c ontinue d C hristia n pra c tic e i n a h om e c hurc h. T h us, substa ntia l
e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s c onc l usion tha t re sista nc e to polic e a

uthority wa s the c e ntra l
re a s on for G u o’ s a rre st, d e te ntion, b e a t ing a n d fine , a nd tha t ne ithe r re ligion nor p olitic a l opinion wa s a c e ntra l re a son for the tre a tm e nt to whic h Guo wa s subje c te d. The re is, howe ve r, e vide nc e in t he re c ord tha

t c ould support a

c onc l usion tha t
re ligion or politic a l opinion wa s “ a re a son ” f o r Guo’ s tre a tm e nt b y the a uthoritie s. Our de c ision in B arajas-Rome r o v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351 (9th C ir. 2017), c a m e down
a fte r the B IA re a c he d its de c isio n in t h i s case . W e he ld in Barajas-Rome ro tha t
e ligibility for withholding of re m ova l, a s distinc t from e ligibility for a sy lum , re quire s only tha t a forbidde n g r o und suc h a s re ligion be “ a re a s on” for t he offic ia l a c tion a t issue
. T he IJ a nd the B IA a ppe a r to ha v e a

pplie d the c rite rion of “ a c e ntra l re a son”
ra the r tha n “ a re a son” to Guo’ s c la im for withholding of re m ova l
. W e the re fore gra nt
a nd re m a nd Guo’ s pe tition for re vie w with re spe c t t o the B IA’ s d e nia l of withholding of re m ova l in o rde r to p e rm it the a ge nc y to ap p ly the prope r sta nda rd a s a rtic ula te d in Barajas-Rome ro .

3Ne xt, we turn to Guo’ s c la im unde r C AT. Guo c onte n d s tha t his i ll tre a tm e nt by C hine se a

uthoritie s a m ounte d to to rture within the m e a ning of C AT, a nd tha t he is like ly t o be subje c t e d to torture if he is re t urne d to C h i na . Guo’ s ill tre a tm e nt did not rise to the le v e l of c rue l a nd inhum a ne tre a tm e nt re q uire d to sa tisfy the sta

nda rd unde r C A T, a nd he h a s fa ile d to e sta blish tha t it is m ore like ly t ha n n ot tha t he will be torture d if he is re turne d to C h i na . W e the re fore de n y Guo’ s pe tition with re spe c t to his c la im s for a s y lum a nd for
re lie f unde r C AT
. W e gra nt his pe tition a n d re m a nd to the B IA for re c onside ra tion of his c la i m for withholding of re m ova l. W e a wa rd c osts to pe titione r on t he pe tition for re vie w. P ETI TI ON FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D IN PART , G RANT E D IN PART , AND RE M A NDE D.

4Guo v . Se

ssions , No. 14-71868 Ikuta , C i rc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: I c onc ur with the m a

j ority ’ s de nia l of the pe tition a s to a s y l um a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture , but disse nt from the m a jority ’ s
re m a nd a s to withholding of re m ova l. In Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , we re c ogniz e d tha t a ny distinc tion be twe e n “ one c e ntra l re a son” in the a sy lum sta t ute a n d “ a
re a s on” in the withholding sta tute wa s inc onse que ntia l if “ the re wa s no ne xus a t a ll be twe e n the fe a re d pe rse c ution a nd [a prote c t e d ground] .” 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017) (disc ussing Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th C ir. 2010)). In this c a se , the B IA c onc lude d tha t Guo ha d not e sta

blishe d a ny ne xus be twe e n
e ithe r his C hristia

nity or im pute d politic a l opinion a

nd his c la im tha t

he would

“ m ore like ly tha

n not” suffe r future pe rse c ution. 8 C
. F.R . § 208.16(b)(2). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports this c onc lusion. Ac c ordingly , I would de ny the pe tition a s to withholding of re m ova l. 

# F IL ED
SEP 25 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS