FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGGANG ZHANG, No. 09-70684
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-871-503
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Yonggang Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from
the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, and review de novo its legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus
v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and grant in part
the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Zhang failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he returned to China. See
Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.
Zhang testified the police arrested, beat, and interrogated him after he
planned a protest to expose the corruption of his boss. In assessing whether Zhang
suffered harm on account of his political opinion, the agency focused exclusively
on Zhang’s boss’ motivation without adequately assessing the police’s actions
and/or motivations in evaluating his claim. Accordingly, we grant the petition for
review with respect to Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
09-70684