Lin Chen v. Keisler

Fifth Circuit

Lin Chen v. Keisler

250 F. App'x 617

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 11, 2007

Docket06-61077

StatusUnpublished

This text of 250 F. App'x 617 (Lin Chen v. Keisler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lin Chen v. Keisler, 250 F. App'x 617 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Lin Chen, a citizen of China, petitions this court for review of an order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal of the denial of relief by the Immigration Judge (IJ).

Chen argues that the BIA and IJ erred by determining that (1) he did not show past persecution, (2) he failed to establish the objective reasonableness of a well-founded fear of future persecution, and (3) he did not warrant withholding of removal. Chen has failed to “show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the denial of his application for withholding of removal also does not warrant reversal. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994).

Chen also contends that the IJ erred by failing to conduct a separate analysis of his CAT application. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, *618 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Chen’s failure to exhaust this argument by raising it before the BIA serves as a jurisdictional bar to our consideration of this issue. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001).

Chen’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Lin Chen, a citizen of China, petitions this court for review of an order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal of the denial of relief by the Immigration Judge (IJ).

Chen argues that the BIA and IJ erred by determining that (1) he did not show past persecution, (2) he failed to establish the objective reasonableness of a well-founded fear of future persecution, and (3) he did not warrant withholding of removal. Chen has failed to “show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the denial of his application for withholding of removal also does not warrant reversal. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994).

Chen also contends that the IJ erred by failing to conduct a separate analysis of his CAT application. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, *618 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Chen’s failure to exhaust this argument by raising it before the BIA serves as a jurisdictional bar to our consideration of this issue. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001).

Chen’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 F. App'x 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lin-chen-v-keisler-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack