Chiu Yee v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 2 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CHIU LAI YEE, AKA Chiu Lai Lai, AKA               No. 13-72210
    Charlie Yee,
    Agency No. A031-057-918
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted April 26, 2016**
    Before:        McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Chiu Lai Yee, a native and citizen of Hong Kong, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
    Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya
    v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1066
    , 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
    review.
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Yee
    failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation
    of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Hong Kong. See
    Zheng v. Holder, 
    644 F.3d 829
    , 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (“claims of possible torture
    remain speculative”). We reject Yee’s contention that the BIA did not fully
    consider his arguments on appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990
    (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention”) (internal
    quotations and citation omitted). Thus, Yee’s CAT claim fails.
    Finally, we do not consider materials attached to the opening brief that were
    not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963 (9th
    Cir. 1996) (en banc) (review limited to the administrative record).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    13-72210
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-72210

Filed Date: 5/2/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021