UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1294
FENG YAN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 5, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Feng Yan Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant
Director, Jem C. Sponzo, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Feng Yan 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”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
We first note that the agency denied Chen’s request
for asylum on the ground that she failed to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that she filed her asylum application
within one year of her arrival in the United States, and failed
to establish either changed or extraordinary circumstances to
excuse the late filing of her application. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2013). We lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006), and find that Chen has failed to raise a
constitutional claim or question of law that would fall under
the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006). See
Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Given
this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits
of her asylum claims. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of
the petition for review.
Chen also contends that the agency erred in denying
her request for withholding of removal. “Withholding of removal
2
is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that
it is more likely than not that her life or freedom would be
threatened in the country of removal because of her race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion.” Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359 (citations
omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2006). An alien “must show
a ‘clear probability of persecution’ on account of a protected
ground.” Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011)
(quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)), cert. denied,
133 S. Ct. 788 (2012). Based on our review of the record, we
conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that
Chen failed to establish that she faces a clear probability of
persecution in China based upon her religion. ∗
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in
part and deny the petition for review in part. 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 DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
∗
Chen has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of
her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
She has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
3