Weng v. Atty Gen USA

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-8-2004
Weng v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2918
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Weng v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 94.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/94
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-2918
____________
ZHEN LIANG WENG,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Respondent
____________
On Petition for Review from an
Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board No. A77-309-155)
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 7, 2004
Before: RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and YOHN,* District Judge.
(Filed December 8, 2004)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable William H. Yohn, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Zhen Liang Weng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, was
smuggled into the United States in 2000 for a large sum paid by Weng’s family who
borrowed the money from, and still owe, family members and “loan sharks.” Weng was
granted withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture by an Immigration
Judge in September 2001. In a decision issued June 10, 2003, the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) vacated the withholding, ordering Weng removed. We now deny
Weng’s petition for review.
This Court must sustain the Board’s decision if supported by substantial evidence
in the record. Nen Ying Chen v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2004). Weng
sought protection based on a fear that he would more likely than not be tortured if
removed to China. Specifically, he feared detention and torture by authorities in relation
to his illegal departure as well as torture inflicted at the behest of or by creditors of his
family with the acquiescence of authorities. The Board concluded that while Weng was
likely to be imprisoned for his illegal departure, he had not shown it was more likely than
not he would be tortured in conjunction therewith. We agree. While the Board
specifically referred only to torture employed in the extraction of confessions, we are
satisfied that the Board reviewed all of the evidence of record and concluded, as do we,
that the record does not show that this individual is more likely than not to be tortured for
reasons other than the extraction of confessions. Additionally, while we appreciate the
description of the “snakehead” operation found in Chen v. Ashcroft, 289 F.3d 1113 (9th
2
Cir. 2002), decision vacated, 314 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2002), we agree with the Board that,
on this record, it is speculative to conclude that Weng would likely be tortured at the
behest of or by creditors to force repayment of the debt related to the smuggling.
Accordingly, the petition for review will be DENIED.
________________________
3