United States v. 2020-11-13 | 15-72980 | WEILONG LI V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEILONG LI,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72980

Agency No. A205-181-194

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Weilong Li, 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,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of

*
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

NOV 13 2020

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

2
law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d
1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We grant in part, deny in part, and dismiss 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 Li suffered in China rose to the level of persecution. 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
Li’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).
The BIA did not err in finding that Li waived his CAT claim, see Segura v.
Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010), and we lack jurisdiction to consider
Li’s contentions as to the merits of his claim because he did not present them to the
BIA, see id.
We do not reach Li’s contentions that the IJ erred in finding Li did not merit
a discretionary grant of asylum because the BIA did not decide that issue. See

3
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is
limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
We do not consider the country conditions reports Li references in his
opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Li’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part; REMANDED.