Changbao Wang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANGBAO WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73691
Agency No. A099-063-600
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 4, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Changbao Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the BIA’s factual findings for
FILED
NOV 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992). We grant Wang’s petition and remand for the Attorney General
to exercise his discretion whether to grant asylum.
The government conceded Wang’s credibility at oral argument. Thus, we
assume that Wang’s testimony was credible.
The local government abused Wang in response to his political protest
against the local government’s actions. The local government also charged Wang
with being a “counterrevolutionary against the government.” Accordingly, the
record compels a finding that “at least one central reason” for the harm inflicted on
Wang was his political opinion. See Hu v. Holder,652 F.3d 1011, 1017–20 (9th
Cir. 2011).
The record also compels a finding that Wang’s mistreatment rose to the level
of persecution. Two police officers beat Wang for ten minutes, and the local
government detained Wang for two weeks. Upon his release, Wang had to report
to the police weekly, and when Wang failed to show up, the police searched for
him. Under these facts, Wang’s mistreatment qualifies as persecution. See
Mihalev v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 722, 730 (9th Cir. 2004); Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d
1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Wang is statutorily eligible for
2

-- 2 of 3 --

asylum. We remand for the Attorney General to make the discretionary decision
under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A) as to whether to grant asylum. See
Khunaverdiants v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 760, 767 (9th Cir. 2008).
Because Wang is eligible for asylum, we need not address Wang’s challenge
to the BIA’s determinations as to whether he belongs to a cognizable social group
and whether he qualifies for withholding of removal or protection under CAT. We
also need not consider whether the BIA erred in refusing to accept Wang’s new
evidence into the record.
Petition for review GRANTED and REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --