Jian Ye v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Case: 11-60870 Document: 00512015244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
October 10, 2012
No. 11-60870
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

JIAN FEI YE,

Petitioner

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A094 938 703

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jian Fei Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions this court for review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ye
argues that the adverse credibility finding regarding past persecution did not
preclude the IJ and the BIA from finding that he established a well founded fear
of future persecution or that it was likely that he would be tortured if returned

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 11-60870 Document: 00512015244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2012

No. 11-60870

to China. This is the sole issue for appeal, as Ye does not challenge the adverse
credibility finding made by the IJ and affirmed by the BIA. By failing to argue
the adverse-credibility-finding issue, Ye has abandoned any claims of error he
might have raised regarding the adverse-credibility-finding. See Thuri v.
Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).
With respect to Ye’s argument related to future persecution and torture,
the BIA was not afforded an opportunity to address the issue because Ye did not
include any reference to it in his brief submitted to the BIA. See Claudio v.
Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Ye failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as to this issue, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it
in the instant petition. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir. 2009).
Ye’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.