Hui Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-60030 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 01/13/2011 [10-60030]

Hui Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr. 10-60030 Case:

Document: 00511300663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-60030 S u m m a r y Calendar November 22, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

H U I CHEN, P e titio n e r, versu s E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General, R esp on d en t.

P e t it io n for Review of an Order of t h e Board of Immigration Appeals N o . A094 794 215

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* H u i Chen, an illegal alien, who is a native and citizen of the People's Rep u b lic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the C o n v e n t io n Against Torture ("CAT") based on his fear of persecution because of h is Christian religious beliefs, membership in an unauthorized home church,

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-60030 Document: 00511300663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2010 No. 10-60030 a n d distribution of religious fliers in public. The immigration judge ("IJ") denied C h e n 's application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissed his a d m in is t r a t iv e appeal. Chen argues that he established a well-founded fear of persecution, that t h e IJ impermissibly ignored his friend's persecution, that restrictions on the p r a c t ic e of religion constitute persecution, that police knowledge of his religious fa it h before his friend's arrest is irrelevant, that the IJ impermissibly ignored t h e distinction between memberships in government-authorized and underg r o u n d churches, that his asylum claim was analyzed under the wrong legal s t a n d a r d , and that the BIA erred by failing to address objective evidence of pers e c u t io n and in refusing to consider his CAT claim. As a threshold matter, the government argues that Chen did not exhaust h is CAT claim because he did not raise it before the BIA. In the brief submitted t o the BIA during his administrative appeal, Chen included a sentence setting fo r t h the legal standard in CAT cases and general statements about his friend's t o r t u r e by police. Even if those statements were sufficient to present Chen's c la im fairly, there is no basis for reversing the IJ's denial of relief under the C A T . See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321-23 (5th Cir. 2009); Majd v. Gonz a le s , 446 F.3d 590, 597 (5th Cir. 2006). Next, we review the determination that Chen is ineligible for asylum and w it h h o ld in g of removal under the substantial evidence standard, so reversal is im p r o p e r unless the evidence not only supports but also compels a contrary c o n c lu s io n . See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 2005). The IJ and BIA determined that Chen failed to establish past persecution or a wellfo u n d e d fear of persecution if returned to the People's Republic of China. The e v id e n c e does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F .3 d 182, 187-94 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Chen has failed to establish eligibility fo r asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent standard of eligibility for withh o ld in g of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). T h e petition for review is DENIED. 2