Xue Zhen Chen v. Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that evidence that some but not all repatriated detainees were tortured did not entitle the petitioner to relief under the CAT because it did not establish with requisite certainty that the petitioner would be tortured
• finding that similar country conditions reports on the status of Christians in China failed to demonstrate persecution
• noting that judicially imposed detention is typically not considered torture, which is defined as an act that causes “‘severe pain or suffering’” (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1))
• explaining that “[t]he government’s inability to provide ‘complete security’ to the petitioner from [private actors] did not rise to the level of state action” required under the CAT
• noting it is proper to consider government efforts \to combat [criminal activity] in the willful blindness inquiry\
• stating that we may consider “government efforts to combat corruption or abuse”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).