United States v. 2020-07-22 | 18-71778 | XIONGYING HU V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIONGYING HU,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-71778

Agency No. A206-666-509

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Xiongying Hu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications 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).
FILED

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-71778
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.
We do not consider the materials Hu references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
The record compels the conclusion that the cumulative harm Hu suffered in
China rose to the level of persecution. See Guo, 897 F.3d 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 Hu’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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Hu
failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent
or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v. Holder, 589

3 18-71778
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Guo, 897 F.3d at 1217 (insufficient
likelihood of torture).
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.