Wei Lin v. Robert Wilkinson
This text of Wei Lin v. Robert Wilkinson (Wei Lin v. Robert Wilkinson) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEI LIN, No. 20-73093
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-957-919
v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Wei Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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. Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Lin’s CAT claim
because he did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of possible torture
were speculative); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (country
reports and credible testimony were insufficient to compel conclusion that
petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 20-73093
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wei Lin v. Robert Wilkinson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wei-lin-v-robert-wilkinson-ca9-2021.