14-2868
Chen v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A205 030 748
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY
OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 5th day of February, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 WEI CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2868
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Song
28 Park, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Michele Y. F. Sarko, Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Wei Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 18, 2014, decision
11 of the BIA affirming a June 11, 2013, decision of an Immigration
12 Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding
13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Wei Chen, No. A205 030 748 (B.I.A. July 18,
15 2014), aff’g No. A205 030 748 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 11,
16 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
17 facts and procedural history in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s
19 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the basis for
20 denying relief that the BIA did not consider. See Xue Hong Yang
21 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The
22 applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C.
23 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d
24 Cir. 2009).
2
1 Chen raised the following two claims before the IJ: (1) she
2 suffered past persecution based on her political opinion; and
3 (2) she has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on
4 her religion. The IJ found that Chen failed to satisfy her
5 burden of proof. In her brief, Chen challenges only the IJ’s
6 rejection of her claim of past political persecution. However,
7 Chen explicitly abandoned that claim on appeal to the BIA and
8 it is therefore unexhausted. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of
9 Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition
12 is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
13 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3