Guai Ren Liu v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1771
GUAI REN LIU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-316-713)
Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant
Director, Patricia A. Smith, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Guai Ren Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without
opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. Liu contends first that the IJ violated his right
to due process because he rejected Liu’s past persecution claim
without making any reference to the medical report of Qing Yeh,
M.D. We find this claim to be without merit because the record
reveals that the IJ in fact considered the report and Liu, in any
event, cannot show prejudice from the alleged oversight. See
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir. 2002).
Next, Liu asserts that the IJ erred in relying on the
2001 State Department Country Report. We find that we are without
jurisdiction to consider this claim because Liu failed to raise it
before the Board and thus did not properly exhaust administrative
remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362
F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed, 73
U.S.L.W. 3135 (U.S. Aug. 23, 2004) (No. 04-256).
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 2 -