Case Name: JIANGYUAN HU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-13
Citations: 575 F. App'x 784
Docket Number: No. 12-72092
Parties: JIANGYUAN HU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 784–784

Head Matter:
JIANGYUAN HU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72092.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 27, 2014.
Jiangyuan Hu, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Arthur Leonid Rabin, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jiangyuan Hu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir.2011). We grant and remand.
Hu testified police told him they arrested and detained him because he was "spreading words" against the communist party leadership and the government, and he provided evidence he was laid off because he "instigated the workers" and "slandered the party leader." ' The record compels the conclusion that "one central reason" for the harm inflicted on Hu was his actual and/or imputed political opinion. See id. at 1017-20 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, we grant the petition and remand Hu's asylum claim for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.