Court Opinion

ID: 9363206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:57:57.005357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:29.919838
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 23 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIETING HE,                                     No.    19-70775

               Petitioner,                      Agency No. A205-551-211

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

               Respondent.

                    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals

                         Submitted December 21, 2022**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Jieting He (“He”), a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding

      *
          This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the

petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

      He fled China in 2012 because she was an unmarried woman who became

pregnant in violation of China’s family planning policy and feared a forced abortion.

She has given birth to two children in the United States, remains unmarried, and

testified she would like to have more children. The IJ found her credible but denied

her claims because of the subsequent change in China’s one child policy:

      According to the U.S. State Department Country Report, as of January
      1, 2016, China ended its one child policy by raising the birth limit
      imposed on its citizens from one to two children. . . . The respondent
      seemed totally unaware of the fact that the one child policy had been
      eliminated and was visibly affected by the news. . . . No evidence was
      offered to the Court that would indicate why or how unmarried couples
      would suffer or be treated in any manner differently than the couples
      mentioned in the U.S. State Department Country Report.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N

872, 874 (BIA 1994), reasoning:

      The Immigration Judge did not clearly err in her factual finding that
      China has ended its one child policy, and now allows its citizens to have
      2 children and apply for permission to have a third child. As noted by
      the Immigration Judge, the respondent did not offer evidence of why or
      how an unmarried parent in her situation would suffer or be treated
      differently than married couples as addressed in the country reports
      contained in the record.

      Both decisions misstate the record regarding a critical fact.        The 2016

Department of State Human Rights Report in the record explicitly indicates that

                                         2
although the one child regulations for married couples have changed to allow two

children, the regulations pertaining to unmarried women have not: “Regulations

pertaining to single women and unmarried couples remain unchanged. Children

born to single mothers or unmarried couples are considered ‘outside of the policy’

and subject to the social compensation fee and the denial of legal documents. . . .”

      An agency decision cannot stand if it did not consider all the evidence before

it, including “misstating the record and failing to mention highly probative or

potentially dispositive evidence.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771‒72 (9th Cir.

2011); see also Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 915‒16 (9th Cir. 2018)

(remanding to the BIA to “consider all relevant evidence”). Thus, we grant the

petition and remand He’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the

BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. He’s removal is stayed

pending a decision by the BIA.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

                                          3