FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011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
SONG LIN YUAN, No. 08-71922
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-440-317
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Song Lin Yuan, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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. Quan v.
Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883, 885 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and grant in part the
petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Yuan
failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to
China. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1201 (9th Cir. 2007).
Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination based on a perceived inconsistency regarding the circumstances of
Yuan becoming a Christian, see Quan, 428 F.3d at 887, or the omissions from
Yuan’s application of details regarding her arrest and release from detention, see
Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Lopez-Reyes v.
INS, 79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 1996).
In addition, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s finding that
Yuan failed to show her business was closed on account of a protected ground. See
Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2006). Because the
agency did not consider this incident when evaluating Yuan’s past persecution
claim, we remand for the agency to do so in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura,
537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
2 08-71922
Accordingly, we grant the petition with respect to Yuan’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency, on an open record, for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See id.; see also Soto-Olarte
v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1093-96 (9th Cir. 2009).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 08-71922