Case Name: BING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-03
Citations: 615 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 14-72358
Parties: BING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 890–890

Head Matter:
BING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72358.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 3, 2015.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Trade Nicole Jones, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously condudes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
The agency denied Chen's asylum and withholding claims based on an adverse credibility determination. We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen's contentions regarding the adverse credibility determination, because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review issues not raised before the agency); see also Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir.2002) ("we may not entertain due process claims based on correctable procedural errors unless the alien raised them below").
Chen's motion for stay of removal is denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.