Court Opinion

ID: 9962047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 16:02:10.995565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:48.404347
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               APR 22 2024
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUCHENG DING,                                    No.   21-70263

              Petitioner,                        Agency No. A095-876-740

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

              Respondent.

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

                        Argued and Submitted April 9, 2024
                               Pasadena, California

Before: SILER,** BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Yucheng Ding petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) order affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied him

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
(CAT). We have jurisdiction to consider his legal challenge under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D).

      Because Ding applied for asylum and withholding in 2002, the credibility

standard specified by the REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), was

not applicable, see Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010).

Therefore, the BIA erred by applying the REAL ID Act standard in reviewing the

IJ’s finding that Ding’s testimony in support of his application for asylum and

withholding was not credible. “[W]here the BIA applies the wrong legal standard

to an applicant’s claim, the appropriate relief from this court is remand for

reconsideration under the correct standard, not independent review of the

evidence.” Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzalez, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006). We

therefore grant the petition as to Ding’s claims for asylum and withholding of

removal, and remand to the BIA to reconsider those claims under the correct

standard and with reference to “all of the evidence before it,” Antonio v. Garland,

58 F.4th 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted), including the declarations

submitted by Ding’s wife and coworker regarding Ding’s arrest, detention, and

release.

      Ding concedes that he did not appeal the denial of his CAT relief claim to

the BIA, and does not argue he is entitled to relief. That claim is therefore

                                           2
forfeited, see Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020), and

we deny the petition for review as to CAT relief.

      PETITION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and

REMANDED.

                                         3