Shengzhe Dong 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).
KAD/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHENGZHE DONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70856
Agency No. A097-359-927
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Shengzhe Dong, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-70856 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009), and we grant and
remand the petition for review.
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial
evidence because Dong explained why his cousin was wanted by the North Korean
government, see Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1052-55 (9th Cir. 2008), the
perceived inconsistencies between Dong’s testimony and declaration as to whether
he was locked to a heating pipe or air conditioning unit are minor inconsistencies
that do not go to the heart of the claim, see Li, 559 F.3d at 1103-05, and Dong was
not given an opportunity to explain the omissions in his declaration and testimony
that the IJ relied upon, see Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091-92 (9th Cir.
2009).
Additionally, the BIA did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in
Li, 559 F.3d at 1099, which holds that substantial evidence did not support the
BIA’s finding that the petitioner was a mere criminal subject to prosecution when
the petitioner violated no Chinese law, but instead came to the aid of refugees in
defiance of China’s unofficial policy of discouraging aid to refugees.

-- 2 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-70856 3
Accordingly, we grant the petition to review with respect to Dong’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims, and remand to the BIA on an open
record. See Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d at 1096; see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,
16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --