FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUO LIN WANG, No. 08-70822
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-538-364
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Guo Lin Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial
*
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).
evidence factual findings. Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th
Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.
Wang contends that because of his participation in an underground church in
China, he was arrested by government officials, detained for seven days, slapped,
and suffered from an illness as a result of his incarceration. The record does not
compel the conclusion that Wang suffered past persecution based on these
experiences. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006);
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). However, substantial
evidence does not support the agency’s relocation finding based on evidence
suggesting that in some places it is easier to attend unregistered churches and that
there are areas where perhaps authorities are more lenient. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(3)(ii); Fakhry, 524 F.3d at 1065 (because petitioner testified he
feared persecution at the hands of the government, he “gains the benefit of the
presumption that the threat of persecution exists nationwide and that relocation is
therefore unreasonable”); Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2010)
(discussing factors to consider in determining whether relocation is reasonable).
We therefore grant the petition for review as to the agency’s well-founded fear
2 08-70822
finding and remand for further proceedings. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,
16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 08-70822