Case: 12-60215 Document: 00512042947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 5, 2012
No. 12-60215
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
CHUN SHENG CHEN,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A088 314 676
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chun Sheng Chen is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China.
Chen was found to be removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien
present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Chen then
applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge denied relief, and Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Chen’s appeal. This timely petition for
review followed.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-60215 Document: 00512042947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2012
No. 12-60215
In his petition for review, Chen argues that the BIA erred in determining
that he failed to establish past persecution because it considered only his
treatment during a 15-day detention during December 2006 and not the
cumulative effect of that detention and treatment along with the treatment he
received post-detention. He also argues that the BIA erred in determining that
he had failed to show a well founded fear of future persecution because it did not
take into account the tenacity of family planning officials. Further, he argues
that he has the requisite familial and social ties to make relocation within China
unreasonable. Chen did not raise these specific arguments in the appellate brief
he filed with the BIA. Because these arguments were not fairly presented to the
BIA on direct appeal, they are unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to consider
them. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir. 2009).
The BIA deemed abandoned Chen’s CAT claim and his request for asylum
based on his political opinion regarding the Chinese government’s one-child
policy. By failing to challenge the BIA’s conclusion in that regard in his petition
for review, Chen has abandoned any such challenge in this court. See Soadjede
v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION.
2