Ben Bin Zhang v. Ashcroft ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-27-2004
Zhang v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-3644
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Zhang v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 328.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/328
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-3644
BEN BIN ZHANG,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General
United States of America,
Respondent
____________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(BIA No. A79-297-661 )
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 21, 2004
Before: McKEE, ROSENN, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 27, 2004)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Peoples Republic of China. He was
smuggled into this country in January 1999 and removal proceedings commenced on
1
March 20, 2001. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (IJ) found petitioner not credible
and on the merits rejected his claims for asylum and protection under Article 3 of the
United Nations’ Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16, 208.18. The Board of Immigration
Appeals affirmed on August 21, 2003.
Petitioner appeals the ruling based on the Convention Against Torture,
conceding that his claim for asylum was barred as untimely pursuant to the one-year
limitation.
Petitioner testified that in 1996 he became involved in an altercation when
he protested the authorities’ action in forcing his aunt to have an abortion. He was beaten
and confined for one day. In addition, he was penalized by being denied the right to
attend school and was threatened with being summoned for further interrogation.
Petitioner then went into hiding for the next three years. He asserts that authorities came
to his mother’s home and asked about his whereabouts on numerous occasions.
Petitioner fears that if he is removed to China he will be imprisoned and
abused. He relies on Chang v. INS, 119 F.3d 1055 (3d Cir. 1997) to support his claim.
This case is distinguishable because there a breach of China’s state security laws was
involved. Rather, we conclude that the situation here is similar and more akin to that in
Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985 (9 th Cir. 1996). Here, the petitioner’s confrontation with local
authorities does not appear likely to cause him, on his return, to be singled out for
2
brutality, either physical or economic.
We are not persuaded that the IJ’s findings of credibility lack substance in
the record. Our review of the transcript does not establish that the petitioner has met his
burden of showing that the findings were incorrect.
Accordingly, the petition for review will be denied.
3