15-1092
Chen v. Lynch
BIA
Lamb, IJ
A087 640 017
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 17th day of August, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JINJIAN CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-1092
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Blair T.
27 O’Connor, Assistant Director; Juria
28 L. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 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 DISMISSED.
9 Petitioner Jinjian Chen, a native and citizen of the
10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 13, 2015,
11 decision of the BIA affirming a November 27, 2012, decision of
12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting Chen’s application
13 for asylum and granting withholding of removal. In re Jinjian
14 Chen, No. A087 640 017 (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 2015), aff’g No. A087
15 640 017 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 27, 2012). We assume the
16 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
17 history in this case.
18 An applicant for asylum must demonstrate by “clear and
19 convincing evidence” that he filed his application within one
20 year after the date of his “arrival in the United States.” 8
21 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). There is an exception to the one-year
22 bar for an applicant who “demonstrates . . . the existence of
23 changed circumstances which materially affect [his]
2
1 eligibility for asylum.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Our
2 jurisdiction to review challenges to determinations regarding
3 the one-year bar and its exceptions is limited to constitutional
4 claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3),
5 1252(a)(2)(D).
6 In arguing that his baptism was the changed circumstance
7 providing an exception to the one-year deadline, Chen
8 challenges the agency’s factual determination that the Chinese
9 government targets persons based on affiliation with a church,
10 not based on baptism, and that Chen’s circumstances changed when
11 he began attending church regularly in November 2007, almost
12 two years before he applied for asylum in August 2009. Chen’s
13 argument, therefore, does not raise a question of law. See Jian
14 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing
15 the BIA’s factual findings regarding country conditions under
16 the substantial evidence standard); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t
17 of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 330-32 (2d Cir. 2006) (dismissing a
18 petition for lack of jurisdiction where the petitioner
19 challenged the IJ’s factual findings regarding changed
20 circumstances). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction.
21
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
3 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
4 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
5 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
6 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
7 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule
8 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4