Xue Yun Lin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XUE YUN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73686
Agency No. A097-363-118
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Xue Yun Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73686 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Lin v. Gonzales,
472 F.3d 1131, 1133 (9th Cir. 2007), and we grant the petition for review, and
remand.
Lin credibly testified she went into hiding for three months and escaped
China to avoid a forced abortion on account of her status as a pregnant, single,
underage woman. She gave birth shortly after arriving in this country. Her
boyfriend was imprisoned for this offense, and when released, also escaped China.
A reasonable fact finder would be compelled to conclude that Lin suffered past
persecution on account of her resistance to China’s coercive population control
program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B); Jiang v. Holder, 2010 WL
2757377 (9th Cir. July 14, 2010). Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand
for the BIA, which shall, on behalf of the Attorney General, exercise discretion
regarding whether to grant asylum. See Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1160-61
(9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We also grant and remand for further proceedings on
whether Lin is eligible for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --