United States v. 2020-08-10 | 15-72794 | BINGYING AN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BINGYING AN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72794

Agency No. A088-285-457

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.

Bingying An, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) 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

AUG 10 2020

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

2 15-72794
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.
As to asylum and withholding of removal, the record compels the conclusion
that the cumulative harm An 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
An’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, An does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he
did not preserve for appeal the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim. 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.