[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 17, 2008
No. 07-15962 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA No. A97-958-163
YONG CHUN WANG,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(July 17, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Yong Chun Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions this court to
review a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering his removal and
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration
and Nationality Act, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(“CAT”). Wang contends that he has a subjectively and objectively well-founded
fear of future persecution in China based on (1) his being present during two police
raids of the underground church he attended; (2) his mother having been arrested
twice for attending the same church; (3) conditions noted in the Department of
State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in China for 2003 and in the
June 2004 Department of State Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions
for China; and (4) his continued church attendance in the United States.
Before proceeding to the merits of Wang’s petition, we must determine
whether we have subject matter jurisdiction to review the petition. Alim v.
Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239, 1252 (11th Cir. 2006). We make this determination de
novo. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir.
2003). We may review the final order of removal in this case only if Wang has
“‘exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.’” Sundar v.
INS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)). This
means that he presented to the BIA the claims that he asks us to review. In other
2
words, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to review claims that he failed to raise
before the BIA. Id., at 1323.
In appealing to the BIA, the only issue Wang presented in his brief was:
“Did the Immigration Judge err in finding that the respondent failed to credibly
demonstrate that he suffered past persecution.” His brief concluded with the
request that the IJ’s “decision not to grant asylum be reversed.” The BIA assumed,
contrary to the IJ’s finding, that Wang’s testimony was credible, but found that
Wang had failed to prove entitlement to asylum and therefore dismissed his
appeal. We lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider Wang’s withholding of
removal and CAT claims because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
with respect to those claims. As indicated above, he presented no argument in
support of those claims to the BIA; his sole contention was that IJ erred in denying
his application for asylum on the ground that his testimony was not credible. He
similarly failed to exhaust his claim that he possesses a well-founded fear of future
persecution (irrespective of past persecution), and that a pattern or practice of
persecution of similarly-situated persons exists in China.
PETITION DISMISSED.
3