09

- 19 78

- ag

C henv . H o lder B IA H o m , IJ A 078 296 481 

### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY O RDE R

RUL I N GS BY SUM

MAR Y O RDE R D O N OT HAV E P REC EDE NTI AL EFF ECT . C ITATION T O A SU MMA RY ORD ER FIL ED O N O R A FTE R J ANU ARY1, 20 07, IS PE RMI TTE D A ND IS GOV

ERNED BY FED ERAL R ULE OF APP ELL ATE PRO CED URE 32. 1 AND THI S COU RT’ S LOCAL RUL E 32. 1.1 . WHENCI TIN G A SU MMA RY ORD ER IN A D OCU

MEN T F ILE D W ITHTH IS COU RT, A PARTY MUS T CIT E EIT HER THE FED ERAL A PPE NDI X O R A N ELE CTR ONI C D ATA

BAS E ( WIT H T HE NOTATI ON “SU MMA RY ORD ER” ). A P

ART Y C ITI NG A S UMM ARY ORD ER MUS T S ERV

E A CO PY OF IT ON ANYPA RTYNO T R

EPR ESE NTE D B Y C OUN SEL . 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 13 day of April, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 YI LI CHEN, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 09-1978-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent . 21

_______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Vlad Kuzmin, New York, New York. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; 26 Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel; 27 Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 29 United States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, D.C. 312 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Yi Li Chen, a native and citizen of China, 6 seeks review of the April 10, 2009, order of the BIA 7 affirming the May 31, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom denying his application for asylum and 9 withholding of removal. In re Yi Li Chen , No. A 078 296 481 1 0 (B.I.A. Apr. 10, 2009), aff’g No. A 078 296 481 (Immig. Ct. 1 1 N.Y. City May 31, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity 1 2 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 1 3 case. 1 4 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both 1 5 the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions. Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 1 6 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review 1 7 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin 18 Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 1 9 In addition to the statutory requirement that 2 0 petitioners exhaust the categories of relief they seek, 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), petitioners must also raise to the 2 2 BIA the specific issues they later raise in this Court. See3 1 Foster v. INS , 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004). While not 2 jurisdictional, this judicially imposed exhaustion 3 requirement is mandatory. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of 4 Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007) Because Chen 5 failed to challenge the IJ’s adverse credibility 6 determination in his appeal to the BIA, we decline to 7 consider this issue. Thus, the IJ’s adverse credibility 8 determination is a valid basis for his denial of Chen’s 9 application for asylum. Accordingly, the IJ did not err in 1 0 denying Chen’s withholding of removal claim because both 1 1 claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul 12 v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2006). 1 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion 1 5 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 1 6 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 1 7 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 1 8 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 19 2 0 FOR THE COURT: 2 1 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24