Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03716/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03716-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ying Ying Chen
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3716

___________

Ying Ying Chen, * 

* 

Petitioner, * 

* Petition for Review of a

v. * Final Decision of the Board 

* of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General * 

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: November 12, 2007

Filed: November 27, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ying Ying Chen, a native of Burma, petitions for review of an order of removal

by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). After applying for asylum, Chen, before

the immigration judge (IJ), withdrew her application and waived her right to appeal

in exchange for the maximum amount of time for voluntary departure. Chen filed an

appeal with the BIA, claiming the withdrawal of her application was not a knowing

and willful one because of problems with her interpreter. The BIA determined it

lacked jurisdiction because Chen had waived her right to appeal. We hold that we lack

jurisdiction. Therefore, we deny Chen's petition for review. 

Appellate Case: 06-3716 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2007 Entry ID: 3375954
-2-

Chen, a native of Burma and a citizen of China, entered the United States on

August 13, 2001, as a non-immigrant visitor. On July 3, 2002, Chen applied for

asylum and/or withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT). Chen appeared for a hearing before an Asylum Officer on November

17, 2003, and Chen's petition was administratively denied and referred to the IJ.

Because Chen remained in the United States beyond the authorized period, a Notice

to Appear was issued on May 1, 2004, regarding removal pursuant to section

237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B).

On June 4, 2004, Chen appeared before the IJ for an initial hearing. During this

hearing, Chen, through counsel, conceded removability and waived her right to an

interpreter. The IJ set Chen's final hearing for June 15, 2005.

At the June 15, 2005 hearing, a Burmese translator was present for Chen.

During the hearing, the IJ granted a recess so that Chen's family could discuss whether

any family members had or would file a visa petition on Chen's behalf. After the

recess, Chen's counsel informed the IJ that Chen was withdrawing her application for

asylum and withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. Chen requested

the maximum possible time for voluntary departure, and the IJ granted that request.

The IJ asked Chen if she understood what the attorneys were proposing. Chen

stated that she did. When asked by the IJ if she understood that she was giving up her

asylum, withholding, and relief under the CAT applications, Chen stated she did

understand. Chen's counsel was given permission to question Chen, and counsel asked

Chen if she made her decision voluntarily and intelligently. Chen stated "yes, sir." The

parties agreed that the application would be withdrawn with prejudice. The IJ ordered

that if Chen did not depart by the expiration of the 120-day period, she was to be

removed to China, or in the alternative, Burma. The IJ then asked the parties if they

accepted this decision and waived appeal. Chen's counsel responded "yes, your

honor." 

Appellate Case: 06-3716 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2007 Entry ID: 3375954
-3-

Despite her appeal waiver, Chen appealed the IJ's order to the BIA on June 28,

2005. Chen argued that the waiver of her application was not knowing and voluntary.

Chen contends that during the June 15, 2005 hearing, her lawyer told her that she had

to leave the country and that when she asked her interpreter what was happening, the

interpreter told her that she could not talk in the courtroom. Chen claimed that she

only found out later that counsel had volunteered her departure. She also argued that

the IJ should have questioned her directly about the voluntariness of her waiver of her

application and her right to appeal.

In a per curiam decision issued September 28, 2006, the BIA dismissed the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on Chen's waiver. The BIA's record review

concluded that Chen waived the appeal and that Chen knowingly and intelligently

withdrew her asylum application. 

Chen petitions for review, arguing that the BIA erred in finding that she

knowingly and intelligently volunteered to leave the country and that she waived her

right to appeal. The IJ's and BIA's findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(4)(B); see also Samedov v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704, 706–07 (8th Cir. 2005).

We may only decide the petition on the administrative record. 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(4)(A). 

The record reflects that Chen waived her right to appeal. The IJ's oral decision

contains Chen's waiver of appeal, and the transcript from the June 15, 2005 hearing

shows that Chen explicitly waived appeal through counsel. Nothing in the record

supports Chen's claim that she did not knowingly and intelligently withdraw her

asylum application and waive her right to appeal. Chen was represented by counsel

during the hearings below, and she had a Burmese translator who was sworn in. On

the record, Chen's own attorney asked her if she knowingly and voluntarily

Appellate Case: 06-3716 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/27/2007 Entry ID: 3375954
-4-

understood the rights she was waiving, and she responded in the affirmative. See

Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162, 169 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 823 (2004)

(concluding an alien had waived the right to appeal to the BIA by stating the alien did

not want to appeal). The BIA's finding that Chen waived her appeal is conclusive

because there is no evidence in the record that could compel a reasonable adjudicator

to conclude to the contrary.

Accordingly, we deny Chen's petition for review.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3716 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/27/2007 Entry ID: 3375954