Case Name: FEN HAO CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-16
Citations: 314 F. App'x 906
Docket Number: No. 07-3016
Parties: FEN HAO CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 906–907

Head Matter:
FEN HAO CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-3016.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 6, 2009.
Filed: March 16, 2009.
Benjamin B. Xue, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Kevin J. Conway, Karen Yolanda Drum-mond, Richard M. Evans, Andrew Oliveira, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for Michael B. Mukasey as Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Chinese citizen Fen Hao Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ's) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Having carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition. See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review).
The record supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding, as she provided specific cogent reasons for disbelieving Chen's asylum-application and hearing claims as to why he left China. See Cao v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 657, 660-61 (8th Cir.2006). We also agree with the IJ that, even if Chen's testimony were credible, he did not qualify for asylum, see Yang v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 494 F.3d 1311, 1318-19 (11th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2466, 171 L.Ed.2d 228 (2008) (per curiam); and he thus did not meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal, see Uli v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 950, 958 (8th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we deny Chen's petition for review.
. The IJ also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture, but we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of this relief because it was not first raised before the BIA. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 986 n. 4 (8th Cir.2005).