IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60792

Summary Calendar

FENG WANG,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 732 265

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Feng Wang, a native and citizen of China, entered this country and 

applied for admission without being in possession of any valid entry 

documents. She was charged with removability on that basis under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). She conceded the charge and sought relief in the form of 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT), asserting that she had suffered past persecution on account of 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 19, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60792 Document: 00512737376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2014
No. 13-60792

her practice of the Christian religion in China and that she had a well-founded 

fear of future persecution on that same ground. The immigration judge (IJ) 

found Wang to be incredible, determined that she thus had not established her 

eligibility for relief from removal, and ordered her removed to China. The 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Wang’s appeal of the IJ’s 

decision, and Wang now petitions for review.

Before the BIA, Wang argued that, by denying her motions to substitute 

counsel and continue the proceedings, the IJ denied her the right to choose her 

legal counsel. The BIA first found that the IJ’s rulings on the motions had 

been proper and then addressed Wang’s argument as a due process claim. It 

noted that Wang had proffered nothing to support her contention that she had 

been prejudiced by the rulings by her inability to submit documents 

corroborating her claims to relief. Wang raises a different due process claim 

before this court. She argues here that her proceedings were generally unfair 

because the IJ was predisposed to rule unfavorably on her claims due to the 

fact that she was represented by an attorney with whom the IJ appeared to 

have had negative prior experiences. Although the factual basis for this 

argument was known to Wang at the time she filed her appeal before the BIA, 

she did not raise the argument before the BIA. Nor does she argue here that 

the claim is exempt from the mandatory and jurisdictional requirement that 

claims be raised before the BIA before being raised in a petition for review. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 324-25 (5th Cir. 2009);

Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 

F.3d 383, 390 (5th Cir. 2001). That portion of Wang’s petition for review 

raising this new, unexhausted claim is therefore dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.

2

 Case: 13-60792 Document: 00512737376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2014
No. 13-60792

Turning to Wang’s challenge to the denial of her application for relief

from removal, we review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible 

for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT under the 

substantial evidence standard. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th 

Cir. 2006). Under that standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s 

factual findings unless the alien shows that “the evidence was so compelling 

that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 

F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009).

Wang assigns error to a few of the individual findings underpinning the 

BIA’s overall conclusion that she had not credibly established her claims for 

relief. An adverse credibility determination may be supported by “any

inconsistency or omission . . . as long as the totality of the circumstances 

establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 538 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Twice, while under oath and

availing herself of the assistance of an interpreter, Wang was asked if she had 

ever applied for a visa to come to the United States. Each time, she answered 

negatively. When confronted with a copy of a visa application filed in her 

name, she insisted that she had misunderstood the question and thought she 

had been asked if she had ever received a visa. Once shown her visa 

application, Wang readily admitted that she had filed a visa application, but 

she later testified that a friend had filed it for her and that she had never seen 

it or read it and was unaware of its contents. This is but one example of the 

inconsistencies presented by Wang’s testimony. Reviewing the record in this 

case as a whole, we conclude that it is not plain that no reasonable factfinder 

would have made the same adverse credibility ruling. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 

538. Overall, the BIA’s decision that Wang was not entitled to asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT because she had not 

3

 Case: 13-60792 Document: 00512737376 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2014
No. 13-60792

provided credible evidence of either past persecution or a well-founded fear of 

future persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 537. 

Accordingly, that portion of Wang’s petition seeking review of the BIA’s 

decision that she had not credibly established her eligibility for relief from 

removal is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN 

PART.

4

 Case: 13-60792 Document: 00512737376 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/19/2014