FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEI ZHANG, No. 07-72640
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-870-456
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Wei Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for substantial evidence. See Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.
2009). We grant the petition for review, and remand.
Zhang credibly testified he was detained by police for 15 days and beaten
three times as a result of his protest against unsafe working conditions at a state-
owned textile factory. Zhang’s repeated requests for medical attention were
ignored, and as a result, Zhang suffered permanent hearing loss to his left ear and a
scar on his head. As a result of his detention, he lost his job at the textile factory,
and was required to report to the police on a bi-weekly basis. Substantial evidence
does not support the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal
because the record compels the conclusion that the cumulative effect of these
events rose to the level of persecution on account of Zhang’s political opinion.
See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004); Korablina v. INS, 158
F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we grant the petition as to Zhang’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for the agency to apply the
presumptions of a well-founded fear of persecution and of eligibility for
withholding of removal. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per
curiam).
We deny Zhang’s motion for a stay of removal as moot.
2 07-72640
We request that this case be assigned to a different immigration judge. See
Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 689 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 07-72640