Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0028-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEI CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-2868.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 5, 2016.
    Zhen Liang Li, New .York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel; Michele Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Wei Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 18, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming a June 11, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wei Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA July 18, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y.City June 11, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the basis for denying relief that the BIA did not consider. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir.2009).

Chen raised the following two claims before the IJ: (1) she suffered past persecution based on her political opinion; and (2) she has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her religion. The IJ found that Chen failed to satisfy her burden of proof. In her brief, Chen challenges only the IJ’s rejection of her claim of past political persecution. However, Chen explicitly abandoned that claim on appeal to the BIA and it is therefore unexhausted. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n. 1 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 13, 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).