UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1561
YONG FENG CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-997-555)
Submitted: December 30, 2005 Decided: January 24, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Kwok-Ho Yu, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Charles
T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Fred B. Westfall, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yong Feng Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge's
order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the
petition for review.
Chen challenges the Board’s denial of his request for
relief for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT.
The Attorney General contends Chen waived this argument because he
did not raise it on appeal to the Board. Failure to raise this
issue before the Board constitutes a waiver of the issue and
precludes review by this court. See Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538,
544 (4th Cir. 1999). A review of Chen’s brief to the Board
supports this argument, and we therefore do not review the
underlying merits of these claims.
As for the denial of Chen’s request for asylum, we will
reverse the Board only if the evidence “was so compelling that no
reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
(quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992)). A
trier of fact who rejects an applicant's testimony on credibility
grounds must offer specific, cogent reasons for doing so. See
Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). This court
- 2 -
accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility
findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). We have reviewed the record,
the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order, and we
conclude substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
credibility finding. Accordingly, Chen’s challenge to the denial
of his application for asylum fails.
We therefore deny Chen’s petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -