leaving both criminal and administrative detainees vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment. However, the AI Report neither indicates whether repatriated Chinese nationals who left illegally are routinely imprisoned or detained administratively, nor, if so, whether they are consistently mistreated or tortured. Furthermore, although Weng’s Mend indicated in his letter that he was detained for his illegal departure, the exact circumstances of his departure and reasons for detention are not clear, and Weng failed to explain how his smuggling experience was similar to that of his Mend. Thus, the IJ reasonably found that Weng failed to prove a clear probability that he would be tortured if returned to China. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners argument that the evidence in the record clearly establishes that he is more likely than not to face torture if removed citation quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country holding that a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to conclude that the petitioner would more likely than not be subjected to torture if removed to china based solely on the fact that she had illegally departed china without more particularized evidence holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed