Lili Ren v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LILI REN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73584
Agency No. A089-983-780
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Lili Ren, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ 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 (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act. See Ren v. Holder,
648 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2011). We grant the petition for review and
remand.
The agency found Ren not credible based on inconsistencies within her
testimony and between her testimony and documentary evidence. Substantial
evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination because it
was based on inconsistencies that are either “manifestly trivial,” see id. at 1089, or
not supported by the record. See id. at 1087.
The agency also found that even if Ren was credible, she did not meet her
burden of establishing eligibility for the relief requested. Substantial evidence
supports the conclusion that Ren’s experiences in China did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006) (record did
not compel the finding that petitioner demonstrated past persecution). However, as
Respondent concedes, in determining Ren failed to establish an objectively
reasonable fear of future persecution in China, the agency erroneously relied on
portions of a religious freedom report pertaining to Hong Kong, not mainland
China.
13-73584 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Ren’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency, on an open record, for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th
Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
13-73584 3

-- 3 of 3 --