FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGSHENG HAN, No. 12-72624
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-694-726
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Yongsheng Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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). Thus, we deny Han’s request
for oral argument.
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in
part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Han’s CAT claim
because Han failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to China. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1026 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Han
failed to establish his experiences in China rose to the level of past persecution.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (record did not
compel the finding that petitioner suffered past persecution). Substantial evidence,
however, does not support the agency’s finding that Han failed to establish a nexus
to a protected ground. See Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1017-20 (9th Cir. 2011)
(record compelled finding a central reason for petitioner’s mistreatment was his
actual or imputed political opinion). Thus, we grant the petition for review and
remand Han’s asylum and withholding of removal claims for the agency to
determine whether Han has a well-founded fear of future persecution and/or faces a
clear probability of future persecution. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18
(2002) (per curiam).
2 12-72624
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 12-72624