Wenzhuang Li v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENZHUANG LI,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73807
Agency No. A088-280-288
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL,** District
Judge.
Wenzhuang Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the determination of an
Immigration Judge (IJ) that he is not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal.
FILED
JAN 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for
the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we grant the petition for
review.
We review the IJ and BIA’s determinations that Li failed to sustain his
burden of proof in regard to the elements of his asylum and withholding of
removal claims under a substantial evidence standard.1 See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504
F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.
1997). Because the IJ and the BIA explicitly found Li’s testimony credible, his
testimony is deemed true without further corroboration. See Salaam v. INS, 229
F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2000).
Given Li’s credible testimony and the lack of any contradictory evidence,
the IJ and BIA’s conclusions that Li did not suffer persecution and that, even if he
did suffer persecution, a political opinion was not one central reason for the
persecution, are unsupported by substantial evidence. Li’s testimony established
that he was arrested, beaten, detained and threatened because of his political
opinion expressed through leading protests at government office buildings. The
facts compel the conclusion that Li suffered persecution and that the police officers
who beat Li were motivated to persecute him, at least in significant part, because of
1The BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision, so we review both decisions.
See Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

his actual or imputed political beliefs. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1017-20 (9th
Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we reverse the IJ and BIA’s conclusions that Li was not
persecuted and that, even if he was, his political opinion was not a central reason
for his persecution.
Li’s past persecution entitles him to a presumption of a well-founded fear of
future persecution. We remand Li’s claim for asylum to the agency for
consideration in the first instance whether the presumption of a well-founded fear
of future persecution has been rebutted, and for consideration of Li’s withholding
of removal claim. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1076 (9th
Cir. 2017).
PETITION GRANTED; REVERSED and REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --