FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONG BIN LIU, AKA Yongbin Liu, No. 13-73004
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-755-540
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Yong Bin Liu, 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 and withholding
*
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).
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for
review and remand.
The BIA found that even if Liu’s asylum application was timely, his
testimony was credible, and that he corroborated his testimony, Liu failed to
establish his experiences in China rose to the level of persecution. In reaching this
determination, the BIA did not consider all of Liu’s experiences, including the fine
levied against him and his wife’s forced abortion. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792,
796 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a spouse’s forced abortion is part of
petitioner’s claim of past persecution); see also Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038,
1044 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The key question is whether, looking at the cumulative
effect of all the incidents a petitioner has suffered, the treatment [he or] she
received rises to the level of persecution.”). Thus, we remand Liu’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims 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.
2 13-73004