Lin Chen v. Keisler ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 11, 2007
    No. 06-61077
    Summary Calendar                Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    LIN CHEN
    Petitioner
    v.
    PETER D KEISLER, ACTING U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A96 191 172
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    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
    *
    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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
    No. 06-61077
    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, 
    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.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-61077

Judges: Reavley, Smith, Barksdale

Filed Date: 10/11/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024