QIANG YE V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-73898 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QIANG ZHI YE, No. 10-73898 Petitioner, Agency No. A042-010-298 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 17, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District Judge.*** Qiang Zhi Ye (Ye), a Chinese national and citizen, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of * 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). *** The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. the immigration judge’s denial of deferral of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ye contends that the BIA’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence because it is more likely than not that he would be forcibly sterilized due to his intellectual disability. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of Ye’s overly speculative CAT claim premised on the 2008 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report for China. Although the State Department report reflects that the Chinese government requires individuals with congenital disabilities to use birth control or undergo sterilization if they wish to marry, Ye failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he would be forcibly sterilized due to his non-congenital disability resulting from childhood meningitis. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the BIA properly denied CAT relief based on the petitioner’s overly speculative claim); see also Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Despite the troubling country reports, the record evidence does not compel the conclusion that [petitioner] himself will be, more likely than not, tortured upon his return. . . .”) (emphasis in the original). PETITION DENIED. 2
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.
