FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XINSHENG WANG, No. 12-73188
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-799-266
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Xinsheng Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We grant the petition for review and remand.
Wang’s testimony and written statement indicate he was arrested, struck, and
detained for six days for holding a house church gathering at his store. During his
second interrogation, he was struck again and forced to sign a document requiring
weekly reporting and monitoring and barring him from his Christian contacts,
activities, and beliefs. The authorities also sealed his store and confiscated his
business license. Before coming to the United States, he reported 18 times and had
to report whether he was complying with the religious ban. After he stopped
reporting, he did not return home.
In finding Wang did not suffer past persecution, the BIA characterized his
experience as a “single, isolated encounter with the authorities.” Substantial
evidence does not support this finding because the BIA did not address the full
extent of Wang’s past harm. See Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.
1998) (“[t]he key question is whether, looking at the cumulative effect of all the
incidents a petitioner has suffered, the treatment [he] received rises to the level of
persecution”); Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, in
assessing Wang’s future fear, the agency did not give Wang an opportunity to
corroborate his account of continuing police interest, see Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d
2 12-73188
1079, 1090-93 (9th Cir. 2011), and the BIA did not acknowledge that his continued
religious contacts were in secret. In light of the BIA’s failure to fully address past
persecution and the possibility of a presumption of future fear, we do not otherwise
address the agency’s finding that Wang failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. Thus, we grant the petition as to Wang’s asylum claim and
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 12-73188