CHIU YEE V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72210 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHIU LAI YEE, AKA Chiu Lai Lai, AKA Charlie Yee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-72210 Agency No. A031-057-918 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.