Song v. Sessions, No. 14-71113 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2018)
Song v. Sessions, No. 14-71113 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2018)
Song v. Sessions, No. 14-71113 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2018)
*
The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2 SONG V. SESSIONS
SUMMARY **
Immigration
**
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It
has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
SONG V. SESSIONS 3
COUNSEL
OPINION
I.
1
This statement of facts is derived from the Administrative Record
that was before the IJ and BIA, including Song’s testimony, excerpts of
a 2010 Human Rights Report from the U.S. Department of State, Bureau
4 SONG V. SESSIONS
2
“[A]ccording to the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, ‘at
least 1,25 million households were demolished and nearly 3,7 million
people were evicted’ in the period from 1997 to 2007.” Cong.-Exec.
Comm’n on China, 111th Cong., Ann. Rep. 187 (2010),
https://www.cecc.gov/sites/chinacommission.house.gov/files/2010%20
CECC%20Annual%20Report.PDF.
3
See also id.
SONG V. SESSIONS 5
4
The regulation stated, “Pursuant to the Official Document No.
SZ(2003)58 of Shangqiu City People’s Government, the compensation
of the store front properties shall be set as RMB11,000 - 13,000 Yuan
per square meter, and residential properties shall be set as RMB3,000 -
4,000 Yuan per square meter.” The first floor of Song’s building was
commercial, and the upper floors were residential.
5
Given the text of the regulation, supra, n.4, it appears Song may
have confused whether the compensation was per square foot or square
meter in his testimony. The distinction is not relevant to the outcome
here.
6
Protests over forced demolition and relocation were common and
often turned violent. As the 2010 Human Rights Report noted, “the vast
majority of demonstrations concerned land disputes; housing issues;
industrial, environmental, and labor matters; government corruption;
6 SONG V. SESSIONS
7
Such “sit-in” demonstrations, also common in China at the time,
often turned violent and sometimes resulted in the resident’s suicide or
death.
8 SONG V. SESSIONS
II.
8
The IJ and BIA also denied Song’s applications for withholding of
removal and CAT protection. The government contends that Song has
SONG V. SESSIONS 9
III.
waived any challenge to his eligibility for these other forms of relief. We
agree as to the CAT claim because Song did not address the IJ’s finding
that the persecution he experienced did not rise to the level of torture.
However, Song did not waive his withholding of removal claim. The IJ
denied this claim for the same reason she denied asylum, and Song
extensively addressed this issue on appeal.
9
The IJ so found, and the BIA did not review nor dispute that
finding. Nor have the parties raised the issue on appeal. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13(b)(1).
10 SONG V. SESSIONS
IV.
* * *
whether Song has met the other elements for asylum relief
before exercising discretion whether to grant asylum.
PETITION GRANTED.