Jong Chen v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Morris S. Arnold and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED) [3993387] [12-1578]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1578 ___________________________ Jong Xiang Chen lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: December 18, 2012 Filed: January 11, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jong Xiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which upheld an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. After careful review, we find no basis for reversal, as the denials of relief were supported by substantial evidence on the Appellate Case: 12-1578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Entry ID: 3993387 administrative record as a whole. See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781, 784 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial-evidence standard for asylum claim; denial of asylum dictates same outcome on withholding-of-removal claim based on same underlying factual allegations); Pavlovich v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 613, 618 (8th Cir. 2007) (immigration judge may reasonably rely on state department reports in assessing likelihood of future persecution); cf. Celaj v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1094, 1097-98 (8th Cir. 2006) (immigration judge’s failure to consider statements in “other” state department reports was not error when statements in other reports did not “materially detract” from conclusions in state department report relied upon by immigration judge). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-1578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 Entry ID: 3993387

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?