Xing Chen v. Loretta Lynch

Fourth Circuit

Xing Chen v. Loretta Lynch

669 F. App'x 158

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 2016

Docket16-1054

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 669 F. App'x 158 (Xing Chen v. Loretta Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xing Chen v. Loretta Lynch, 669 F. App'x 158 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Xing Guo Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. *

Chen first challenges the agency’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Chen has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with respect to the asylum claim.

With respect to Chen’s request for withholding of removal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C, § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Chen (B.I.A. Mar. 23, 2015). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s challenge to the agency’s finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application because he did not exhaust this claim before the Board. Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).

We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

*

Chen does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture,

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Xing Guo Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. *

Chen first challenges the agency’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Chen has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with respect to the asylum claim.

With respect to Chen’s request for withholding of removal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C, § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Chen (B.I.A. Mar. 23, 2015). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s challenge to the agency’s finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application because he did not exhaust this claim before the Board. Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).

We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

*

Chen does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 F. App'x 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xing-chen-v-loretta-lynch-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack