Qin Zeng v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Qin Zeng v. Gonzales

155 F. App'x 375

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

DocketNo. 04-70717

StatusPublished

This text of 155 F. App'x 375 (Qin Zeng v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Qin Zeng v. Gonzales, 155 F. App'x 375 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Qin Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s order denying her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Zeng is not entitled to withholding of removal because she failed to establish a clear probability that she would be targeted for her practice of Zhong Gong or that her life or freedom would be threatened if she returned to China. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Qin Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s order denying her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Zeng is not entitled to withholding of removal because she failed to establish a clear probability that she would be targeted for her practice of Zhong Gong or that her life or freedom would be threatened if she returned to China. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F. App'x 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qin-zeng-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack