[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15690

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A088-312-422

YANG CHEN, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(November 29, 2016)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-15690 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Yang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision 

affirming the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal

under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention 

Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or 

Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). We dismiss in part and deny in part 

Chen’s petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review three of the six arguments in Chen’s petition 

due to his failure to exhaust those arguments. First, Chen argues that he was 

entitled to asylum relief based on the one-child policy in China, but the Board of 

Immigration Appeals ruled that he waived that argument. Chen’s conclusory 

statements that he “fear[ed] returning to China due to his . . . violation of the one 

child policy” and that he “fear[ed] . . . his wife would be forced to undergo 

sterilization” failed to “provide information sufficient to enable the [Board] to 

review and correct [any] error[]” in the finding that Chen’s fear of future 

persecution under the family planning laws was not well-founded. See Indrawati v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). Second, Chen argues that 

the government introduced an asylum officer’s interview notes without proper 

authentication, but Chen failed to make that argument during his removal hearing 

or in his appeal to the Board. See Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1310, 1317 n.5 

(11th Cir. 2009). Chen instead argued that the notes were hearsay and were 

Case: 15-15690 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 2 of 6 
3

unreliable and that their admission violated the Confrontation Clause. Third, Chen 

argues that he was denied due process because the immigration judge was biased, 

but Chen did not present the issue of judicial bias to the Board. “[A]bsent a 

cognizable excuse or exception,” we “lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in 

a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative 

remedies.” Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 

2006). We dismiss these three parts of Chen’s petition.

Chen challenges the denial of his application for asylum based on his 

persecution as a member of an unregistered church, but substantial evidence 

supports the finding that Chen was not credible. The Board and the immigration 

judge identified inconsistencies between Chen’s application, his credible fear 

interview, his testimony, and his corroborating evidence that tainted his account of 

being arrested and beaten by local police. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Chen 

attached to his application a warrant that stated he had been arrested by Chinese 

officials on December 30, 2005, but Chen told an asylum officer and testified 

during his removal hearing that he was arrested on December 24, 2005. Chen 

stated in his application and to the asylum officer that he was beaten after his 

second interrogation on December 29, 2005, but Chen stated in a letter supporting

his application that he was beaten after his first interrogation on December 24, 

2005. Notably, Chen’s uncle did not mention the beating in his letter chronicling 

Case: 15-15690 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 3 of 6 
4

Chen’s mistreatment by Chinese officials, nor did Chen submit any medical 

records to corroborate that he had been injured, despite his testimony that he 

visited a doctor immediately after being released from jail. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13; 

Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). Chen stated in his 

letter supporting his application that he fainted during the beating, but when 

questioned by the asylum officer about omitting that fact during the interview, 

Chen hesitated before confirming that he had fainted. Chen also told the asylum 

officer that he called his parents from jail on December 29, 2005, but Chen 

testified that he had not been allowed to contact his parents. Chen attributed his 

inconsistencies to memory loss caused by the passage of time, but that explanation 

does not “‘compel’ a reasonable fact finder” to credit Chen’s testimony. See Chen 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006).

Chen argues that the record compels the conclusion that he suffered past 

persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution, but we disagree.

Even if we were to accept Chen’s testimony as credible, evidence that he endured 

one beating without sustaining a serious injury, was detained for 26 days, and was 

interviewed by officials once shortly after his release does not rise to the level of 

past persecution. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir.

2005). Chen also failed to submit any evidence to establish that he faced a 

reasonable possibility of future persecution. See Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 

Case: 15-15690 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 4 of 6 
5

1253, 1256 (11th Cir. 2007). Chen lived with his uncle in China for a year without 

incident before entering the United States illegally, and the country reports he 

submitted stated that the harassment of Christians was not consistent throughout

China and that some local officials tacitly approved of or did not interfere with 

unregistered churches. Because Chen cannot satisfy the standard to obtain asylum 

relief, he necessarily fails to qualify under the more stringent standards imposed 

for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention. See Zheng v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006).

Chen also challenges the denial of his motion to remand for the immigration 

judge to consider new evidence that explained his memory loss, but the Board did 

not abuse its discretion when it denied Chen’s motion. Chen requested a remand 

based on a licensed mental health counselor’s assessment that he suffered from 

major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, and symptoms consistent with 

post-traumatic stress disorder. We treat motions to remand based on new evidence 

as motions to reopen, Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 643 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2011), 

which “shall not be granted unless . . . [the] evidence sought to be offered is 

material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at 

the former hearing,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The assessment attributed Chen’s 

memory loss to his beating by Chinese officials in December 2005 and could have 

been diagnosed before Chen’s removal hearing. And the Board reasonably 

Case: 15-15690 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 5 of 6 
6

determined that the assessment did “not establish . . . the facts of a credible 

memory loss.” Chen told the counselor that his detention prevented him from 

documenting the “significant bodily injuries” and “los[s] [of] consciousness” 

caused by the beating, but Chen testified that he underwent treatment on the day he 

was released from jail. The counselor stated that the diagnosis was “provisional”

because Chen had attended “only . . . one session” of counseling during which he 

failed to disclose information “in sufficient detail to be sure of a diagnosis.” Chen 

also failed to provide any evidence that he had received a definitive diagnosis or 

had continued to undergo counseling as recommended in the assessment.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Case: 15-15690 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 6 of 6