Zheng v. Ashcroft

332 F.3d 1186 (2003)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Zheng v. Ashcroft

United Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
332 F.3d 1186 (2003)

Facts

Li Chen Zheng (plaintiff) was a citizen of China who was apprehended while trying to enter Guam. Zheng was in a disadvantaged position in China due to China’s one-child policy. The policy required that if a couple’s firstborn child was a boy, they could not have additional children. Although Zheng was the firstborn and a boy, his parents subsequently had two daughters. Human smugglers, known as snakeheads, brought Zheng and 150 other Chinese nationals to the United States (defendant) by sea. Zheng was taken into custody and was a material witness against the smugglers, who tortured Zheng and the other passengers. Zheng even gave the names of the smugglers. The same day Zheng testified, a snakehead threatened Zheng that he would be killed if he was not careful. Zheng feared returning to China because he feared that he would be killed for his testimony by the snakeheads with the collusion of Chinese officials. For example, Zheng reported that prior to boarding the boat, he saw the snakeheads giving cartons of cigarettes to the harbor police. An immigration judge (IJ) granted Zheng protection under the Convention against Torture (the convention), which the United States Senate had ratified, citing the evidence of collusion between the smugglers and the Chinese government as constituting acquiescence. The convention prohibited government involvement in torture either directly or through the acquiescence of government officials or persons acting on behalf of a government. As implemented through legislation in the United States, a government official’s acquiescence in acts of torture did not require actual knowledge but required that the official was aware that torture would occur and then failed to act to prevent the torture from occurring. By requiring awareness rather than knowledge, the United States Senate made it clear that a government official’s acquiescence included both actual knowledge of acts of torture and willful blindness to such acts. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appealed the IJ’s decision. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, ruling that an applicant must show that a government official acquiesces to a nongovernment group’s acts of torture through willful acceptance in order to receive relief. The BIA ordered Zheng deported to China. Zheng appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership