FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PING ZHENG, No. 08-70706
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-877-688
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ping Zheng, 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 decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Li v.
Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for review and
remand.
Zheng testified she was persecuted and fears future persecution because she
sheltered two North Korean refugees in her home. Zheng testified that police
officers beat her, causing her mouth and nose to bleed, kicked her, held her in a
small room for two days, and repeatedly told her to stop harboring North Koreans.
She further testified that her company fired her for “committing a crime.” The
record does not support the BIA’s determination that Zheng’s treatment did not
rise to the level of past persecution. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th
Cir. 2004) (totality of the circumstances including two day detention coupled with
threats compelled determination of past persecution).
The agency also rejected Zheng’s claim because it found she feared
prosecution for committing an illegal act and not persecution on account of her
political opinion. The agency, however, did not have the benefit of our intervening
decision in Li, 559 F.3d at 1099 (substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s
finding that the petitioner was a mere criminal subject to prosecution when the
petitioner violated no Chinese law, but instead came to the aid of refugees in
defiance of China’s unofficial policy of discouraging aid to refugees).
2 08-70706
Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 08-70706