NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 7 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEMING ZENG, No. 13-73504
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-782-013
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Deming Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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 the
agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Zeng’s CAT claim
because Zeng failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id.
at 1073.
The BIA found Zeng’s asylum claim failed because he did not establish that
a political opinion was or would be at least “one central reason” for his
mistreatment by Chinese authorities. The BIA further found that because Zeng
failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he did not meet the higher standard of
proof for withholding of removal.
As to asylum, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination. See
Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-45 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that heavy-
handed tactics used by police during an investigation for legitimate purposes was
not persecution on account of a protected ground).
As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not have the benefit of this
court’s decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356-60 (9th Cir. 2017)
when it issued its order. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Zeng’s
withholding of removal claim to the BIA to determine the impact of this decision.
2 13-73504
See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 13-73504