FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 10, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ZHIPENG ZENG, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9539 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioner Zhipeng Zeng is a native and citizen of China who seeks review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition for review. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor. He filed his application for relief on July 3, 2013. An asylum officer denied his application and referred his case to an immigration judge (IJ). The Department of Homeland Security then commenced removal proceedings against Petitioner for remaining in the United States longer than permitted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). At his merits hearing Petitioner testified as follows: In March 2012 he received a notice from the demolition department of Jilin City in China that the building he resided in with his mother was going to be demolished by May 1. He refused to move, though, until he received additional compensation, believing that the price he was offered was too low. The demolition department turned off the building’s utilities early in April. In the early morning of June 21, Petitioner went downstairs in his building and discovered about 100 people from the demolition department. They asked him to vacate that same day. He replied that he still would not move without a better offer. When they would not allow him to leave the building, he went upstairs to call the police, who said they could not help him. He came downstairs again later that morning and repeated that he would not move until he received reasonable compensation. He was attacked with knives by five workers, resulting in his hospitalization for 28 days. He believed he was attacked because he “was strongly against this demolition policy from the government.” Certified Administrative Record (CAR) 170; see id. at 160 (describing the policy he opposed as “the government would try to occupy people’s lands by force”). Later a 2 neighbor was also beaten, but he did not know the person and had never communicated with him. During Petitioner’s hospitalization he and his mother ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals