2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-8-2010 

# Xiu F e ng Z ou v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1540

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Xiu F e n g Z ou v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1914. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1914NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1540

___________ XI U F E NG Z OU, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 098- 255- 780) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February4, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: February8, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM X i u Feng Z ou pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff

i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . Fort he r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l d i s mi s s h e rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2

Z ou, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n M ay2005 w i thout a val i d entrydocument . She w as pl ace d i nt o r emoval pr ocee di ngs and, i n r es pons e, s o u g h t a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the I J deni ed r el i ef, det erm i ni ng thatZ ou’ s t es t i m onyw as not cre d ible an d that sh e f

ail ed to p rov ide s u ff

ici en t sup p o rt ing d o cu m en tat ion . T h e B IA agr eed a nd di s m i s s ed the appe al . Z ou fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew and a mot i on fora s t ay of r emoval . T he A t t orneyG ener al oppos ed the mot i on t o s t ayand r eques t ed thatthe pet i t i on forr evi ew be di s m i s s ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s pet i t i on forr evi ew under8 U . S. C . § 1252. I n her p e tit io n f o r re v iew , Z o u , thr o u g h c o u n se l, raise s o n lyo n e c laim : th a t th e IJ f a iled to f o rwa r d h e ra s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n t o th e S t a t e De p a r t me n ti n c o n tr a v e n t i o n o f 8 C. F . R. § 2 0 8 .1 1 , the re b yp re v e n tin g h e r f ro m c o rro b o ra tin g h e r c laim b a se d o n th e S tate D epart m ent ’ s obs ervat i ons . She m ai nt ai ns thatw e ther efor e have no opt i on butt o gr ant the p et i t i on for r eview and rem and for further proceedings. H ow ever, as Z ou con cedes, th is c laim w a s n o t p re se n ted to th e IJ o r th e B IA , an d , the re f o re , is u n e x h a u ste d . D u e to Z o u ’s f a ilu re to e x h a u s t th is c la im , w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r i t. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ; s ee a l s o K i bi nda v. A t t orneyG en. , 477 F. 3d 113, 120 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( r equi r i ng thatpet i t i onerr ai s e and e xhaus tr emedi es as t o eac h cl ai m orgr ound forr el i ef befor e the B I A orI J i n or dert o pr es erve cl ai m forpet i t i on forr evi ew ) ; J os eph v. A t t or ney G en. , 465 F. 3d 123, 126 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “A n al i en mustexhaus tal l admi ni s tr at i veZ o u a rg u e s th a t, de sp ite h e r f a ilu re to p re se n t th is c laim to th e B IA , this C o u rt sh o u ld 1 c o n sid e r it to a v o id “ a m a n if e st in ju stic e .” T h e c a se s s h e c ites d o n o t su p p o rt th is pos i t i on and, even i f theydi d, the r ecor d r efl ect s thatthe I J di d i n fac ts ubm i theras y l um appl i cat i on t o t he St at e D epart m ent . ( A . R . 293. ) T hus , even i f w e w er e t o det erm i ne that s o me e q u i t a b l e e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e d , h e rc l a i m w o u l d b e wi th o u tme r i t . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , we not e thatZ ou’ s att orneyhas r ai s ed thi s ar gum ents ever al t i m es i n the pas tw i thout su c c e ss . S e e , e.g ., K a i-R u i P a n v . M u k a se y , 3 1 4 F e d . A p p x . 3 2 8 , 3 2 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); Ilic v . A tto rn e yG e n ., 2 7 6 F e d . A p p x . 1 8 2 , 1 8 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); L ju b a n o v ic v . A tto rn e yG e n ., 270 Fed. A ppx. 129, 131- 32 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ; G hi l dut a v. M ukas ey , 263 Fed. A ppx. 111, 1 1 2 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); T ch ern y ch ev a v . A tt o rne yG en . , 2 3 0 F ed . A p p x . 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 3 re m e d ies a v a ilab le to h im a s o f rig h t b e f

o re th e B IA a s a p re re q u isite to ra isin g a c laim b ef o re this C o u rt . ”). 1 B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. Z ou’ s m ot i on fora s t ayof r emoval i s deni ed.