Xing Chen v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-645-602. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999942772]. [16-1054]

Appeal: 16-1054

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1054

XING GUO CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

September 22, 2016

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

DUNCAN,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 6, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Keith S. Barnett, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin
C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Derek C.
Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, John M. McAdams, Jr., Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1054

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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

(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016).
review

this

determination

pursuant

to

U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(2)(B)

We lack jurisdiction 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).
2009).

See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.
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 (1992).

*

Accordingly, we

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

2

Appeal: 16-1054

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3