Case Name: FEN YONG CHEN, a/k/a Fen Yuan Chen, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-14
Citations: 254 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 07-1304
Parties: FEN YONG CHEN, a/k/a Fen Yuan Chen, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
FEN YONG CHEN, a/k/a Fen Yuan Chen, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-1304.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 14, 2007.
Fen Yong Chen, Appellant Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Tyrone Sojourner, Jason Xavier Hamilton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Javier E. Balasquide, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fen Yong Chen, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings based upon changed circumstances. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion. See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1147, 166 L.Ed.2d 997 (2007). We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen's argument that he is eligible for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture based on an alleged fear of punishment for his illegal departure from China or asylum request, because Chen failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by making this argument before the Board. See Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.