The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-74526•Fang Hua v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
07-74526Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSep 22, 2010
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FANG HUA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74526
Agency No. A098-356-839
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Fang Hua, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
07-74526 2
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.
Hua testified she feared persecution because she sheltered two North Korean
refugees in her home. The IJ found that Hua feared prosecution and not
persecution. The BIA, affirming the IJ, concluded Hua had not established a well-
founded fear of persecution on a protected ground. The agency, however, did not
have the benefit of our intervening decision in Li, 559 F.3d at 1099, in which the
court concluded 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.
Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings in light of this
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.