United States v. 2020-08-10 | 16-70591 | BAILIN HAN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BAILIN HAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-70591

Agency No. A201-206-194

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Bailin Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ 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 agency’s factual findings.

*
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

AUG 10 2020

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

2 16-70591
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 Han suffered in China rose to the level of persecution.
See 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 Han’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).
In his opening brief, Han does not make any arguments challenging the
agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259
(9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are
deemed abandoned.”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to relief under
CAT.
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.