NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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