Jiang Guan v. William Barr
925 F.3d 1022
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Guan, a Chinese national, became a practicing Christian (house church) and was baptized in 2007; he later attended a U.S. Lutheran church after arrival.
- Guan was the registered legal representative of Jintailong Investment Company (2009–2013), a scheme that collected large sums from the public and from officials’ associates; Guan admitted knowledge that officials used the company to divert public funds.
- Police raided a church meeting held at Guan’s business in January 2013; Guan was detained, beaten, and hospitalized; he was released under reporting conditions and prohibited from religious activities.
- Guan left China for the U.S. in October 2013; China issued an Interpol Red Notice in 2014 accusing him of illegally receiving public deposits (large-scale financial crime).
- Guan applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ and BIA found him ineligible for asylum/withholding as there were serious reasons/probable cause to believe he committed a serious nonpolitical crime and made an adverse credibility finding; they denied CAT relief.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of asylum and withholding (serious nonpolitical crime) but granted relief in part by remanding the CAT claim because the IJ/BIA failed to consider the U.S. church letter and country reports showing Christians in China face torture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guan is statutorily ineligible for asylum/withholding as having committed a serious nonpolitical crime | Guan: prosecution is politically motivated / charges are pretext to punish his exposure of corruption | Government: evidence (Guan’s admissions, arrest warrant, scheme facts) shows large-scale financial wrongdoing lacking political objective | Held: Probable cause/serious reasons supported; crime is nonpolitical → Guan ineligible for asylum and withholding |
| Adverse credibility and its effect on relief | Guan: testimony inconsistencies were minor; due process violated by fasting/interpreter problems | Government: inconsistencies justified adverse credibility; hearing accommodations were adequate | Held: Adverse credibility supported for asylum purposes, but issues (fasting, interpreter) did not deny due process |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to asylum officer’s notes | Guan: counsel should have objected | Government: asylum officer notes are admissible under regulation; no prejudice shown | Held: No plain ineffectiveness; no prejudice shown; claim fails |
| CAT: whether record compels denial or requires remand | Guan: likely torture upon return due to Christian practice and potential disclosure of officials’ corruption; submitted country reports and U.S. church letter | Government: CAT claim rests on discredited testimony and speculation; any punishment for economic crimes would be lawful sanctions | Held: Remand for BIA to reconsider CAT claim because IJ/BIA failed to address church letter and country reports tying Christian believers to risk of torture |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (political nature of crime evaluated by whether political objective outweighs common-law character)
- McMullen v. INS, 788 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1986) (definition of serious nonpolitical crime and political-motive analysis)
- Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (burden to identify political aspect to rebut presumption that large financial crimes are nonpolitical)
- Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2016) (serious reasons standard analogous to probable cause)
- Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (remand required where BIA failed to consider country-condition evidence relevant to CAT despite adverse credibility)
- Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing when country reports alone do not compel CAT relief)
- Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing BIA’s incorporation of IJ reasoning)