NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FENGJIE ZHANG, No. 15-72220
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-043-740
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 5, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Fengjie Zhang, 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, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 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).
agency’s factual findings. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018).
We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and we remand.
As to asylum and withholding of removal, the record compels the conclusion
that the cumulative harm Zhang suffered in China rose to the level of persecution.
Id. at 1213-17 (finding petitioner suffered past persecution because of his religious
beliefs where he was detained, beaten, forced to sign a document promising not to
attend a home church, and required to report to the police weekly); see also Guo v.
Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (totality of the circumstances
compelled finding of persecution). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to
Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Guo, 897 F.3d at 1217;
see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
We do not reach Zhang’s contentions as to the one-year asylum filing
deadline, adverse credibility, and corroboration because the BIA did not decide
those issues. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon
by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
In his opening brief, Zhang does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT
relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
2 15-72220
Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Zhang’s CAT claim.
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.
3 15-72220