### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-60915 Summary Calendar

MEI HE,
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. A089 095 360

Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mei He, a citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dism i s s a l of her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection unde r th e Convention Against Torture (CAT). Mei He, a C h ristian, argues that the evidence compels the conclusion that she is entitled to asylum based upon a wellfounded fear of future persecution by the Chinese government on account of her religion. Mei He does not challenge the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 6, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-60915 Document: 00511612728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2011No. 10-60915

or the denial of her application for protection under the CAT. She has therefore abandoned any challenge to these determinations. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). The BIA’s decision was based in part on the IJ’s findings and the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision. Accordingly, to the extent the IJ’s ruling affected the BIA’s decision, th i s c o u rt will review both decisions. Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 588, 593-94 (5th Cir. 2007). The At t o r n ey General’s statutory power to grant asylum to one who qualifies as a refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) is discretionary. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). A refugee is a “person who is outside a ny c o untry of such person’s nationality,” who cannot or is unwilling to return to “that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or po l itical opinion.” § 1101(a)(42)(A). Whether an alien h a s d e m onstrated eligibility for asylum is a factual determination that is reviewed for substantial evidence. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306. Under this standard, reversal is improper un l e s s th is court decides “not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence co m p e ls it .” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Mei He’s argument that the BIA erred b y a nalyzing whether she had established past persecution lacks merit, as Mei He asserted in testimony that she left China because she was persecuted on account of her religion. The record establishes, inter alia, that Mei He was not harmed while she was in China. She escaped arrest when she fled the police invasion of the “family church” where she practiced her faith and any threat of future arrest was indirect. Also, although she lived in a small village where police were looking for members of her family church, the local police did not find her and did not search for her by name. She

was able to l e av e China using her own passport without incident. The record therefore does not compel a finding that Mei He is eligible for asylum based upon 2 Case: 10-60915 Document: 00511612728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2011No. 10-60915

past persecution. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306; Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 187 n.4 (5th Cir. 2004). As Mei He failed to demonstrate past persecution, she cannot rely upon a presumption of future persec u t i o n . See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). Although Mei He argues at length that the BIA misunderstood her testimony regarding the differences between the family church and the government-mo n itored church, Mei He testified that from the religious aspect the unregi s t ered churches and the registered churches are the same, the members of the two churches use the same Bible, sing th e s a m e s o n gs, and say the same prayers. Moreover, Mei He testified that her parents practice Christianity in the government-monitored church and occasion ally attend a family church, without incident. The record therefore does not compel a conclusion that is contrary to the BIA’s finding that it is possible that Mei He could avoid the risk of future persecution altogether by attending the officially recognized Christian church. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306. Moreover, Mei He failed to provide facts establishing that she has a good

reason to fear that she will be singled out for persecution. See Faddoul v. IN S, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). The record therefore does not compel a finding that Mei He is eligible for asylum based upon a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306

. Mei He further contends that th e B IA erred by determining that relocation

was possible without inquiring whether relocation would be reasonabl e . Although Mei He argued in her appeal to the BIA that c u rr e n t conditions in China made relocation unreasonable, she did not argue, as she does here, that relocation was unreasonable due to China’s household registration system. To the extent that Mei He is raising a new issue before this court that she did not present to the BIA, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 322 (5th Cir. 200 9). The BIA expressly analyzed the 2008 U.S. Department of State International Religi o u s Fr eedom Report and found that the report provided
3 Case: 10-60915 Document: 00511612728 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/26/2011No. 10-60915

evidence of widely varying official treatment of ho u s e churches throughout China. The BIA thus concluded that Mei He could avoid persecution by relocating within China, and it was reasonable to expect her to do so. Thus, Mei He’s argument that the BIA erred by failing to consider whether relocation was a reasonable option is belied by the express findings set forth within the BIA’s opinion, as the BIA expressly analyzed whether relocatio n was a reasonable option in light of evidence in the record. R ather than specifically addressing the provisions of the 2008 repo rt o r other evi d e n c e that is in the administrative record, Mei He contends that relocation is unreason ab l e an d reli e s up on “recent U.S. government reports” that

are not in the administrative record. This court may not consider new evidence that is not part of the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). Mei He’s challenge to t h e B IA’s relocation determination is thus based upon broad generalizati o n s t h a t fail to address the evidence in the record and she relies upon evidence that is not in the administrative record. As such, her argument fails to establish that the record compels a finding that is contrary to the BIA’s determination. See Chen , 470 F.3d at 1134. Finally, Mei He argues that the BIA erred by failing to addre s s the IJ’s credibility finding. However, t h e BIA expressly determined that it was unnecessary to address credibility as, even if credible, Mei He failed to sustain the burden of proof applicable to asylum. A s di s cussed above, the record does not compel a conclusion that is contrary to th e B IA’s denial of relief. Accordingly, Mei He’s petition for review is DENIED.

4 Case: 10-60915 Document: 00511612728 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/26/2011