Case ID: f-appx_125/html/0894-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cheng Jie CUI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71098.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2005.
    
    Decided April 11, 2005.
    Charles J. Kinnunen, Esq., Hagatna, GU, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Steven Tugander, U.S. Department of Justice, New York, NY, for Respondent.
    Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cheng Jie Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility determination because petitioner failed to exhaust that issue before the Board. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). The agency’s credibility determination is dispositive of petitioner’s eligibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.