Xiaoming Liu v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 14-14560 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14560
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-643-119
XIAOMING LIU,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 4, 2015)
Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 14-14560 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Xiaoming Liu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Hong
Zhang’s and his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Liu argues that the BIA’s determination that
he did not file an independent -- one apart from Zhang’s application -- asylum
application is not supported by substantial evidence. He also argues that the BIA
erred by dismissing his appeal after Zhang, the primary asylum applicant,
withdrew her appeal; he says the BIA ought to have remanded the case to the IJ for
further proceedings.
I.
We review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence test;
and we must affirm the BIA’s decision if the decision “is supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Delgado
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 860 (11th Cir. 2007). We review the evidence in
the light most favorable to the BIA’s decision, and we draw all reasonable
2
Case: 14-14560 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 3 of 4
inferences in favor of the decision. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1255
(11th Cir. 2006). We only reverse a factual determination if the record compels
reversal. Id.Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Liu did not file a
separate asylum application. Zhang’s asylum application was the only application
presented to the IJ: Liu as Zhang’s spouse made a derivative claim. During the
process, Liu’s counsel confirmed that he did not file an independent application.
Liu’s counsel also confirmed that Liu was seeking derivative status from Zhang’s
application for asylum. Therefore, we deny Liu’s claim that the BIA lacked
substantial evidence to support its determination that he did not file an independent
asylum application.
II.
We review an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Delgado, 487
F.3d at 860. We lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised
before the BIA. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th
Cir. 2006).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s claim that the BIA erred when it failed
to remand his case for further proceedings. He never requested that the BIA
3
Case: 14-14560 Date Filed: 05/04/2015 Page: 4 of 4
remand his case to the IJ for further proceedings. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to
consider the claim for a remand since he failed to present it to the BIA. See
Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1250. Accordingly, we deny Liu’s petition in part
and dismiss his petition in part.
PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
4