Chen v. Ashcroft , 78 F. App'x 866 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    FEN-HE CHEN,                             
    Petitioner,
    v.                              No. 02-2237
    JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    
    On Petition for Review of an Order
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
    (A70-567-142)
    Submitted: September 4, 2003
    Decided: October 21, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.
    Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant
    Director, Ann Carroll Varnon, Office of Immigration Litigation,
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
    D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                         CHEN v. ASHCROFT
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Fen-He 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"). The order affirmed, without opinion, the immigra-
    tion judge’s decision and order denying Chen’s applications for asy-
    lum, withholding of removal and withholding of removal under the
    United Nations Convention Against Torture. For the reasons dis-
    cussed below, we deny the petition for review.
    Chen claims the immigration judge erred in finding he failed to
    present credible evidence in support of his asylum application. We
    have reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s
    decision, which was designated by the Board as the final agency
    determination, and find that substantial evidence supports the immi-
    gration judge’s conclusion that Chen was not credible. As such, Chen
    failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
    persecution necessary to qualify for relief from removal. 
    8 C.F.R. § 1008.13
    (b) (2003). In addition, he failed to qualify for withholding
    of removal or withholding of removal under the Convention Against
    Torture.
    Next, Chen claims the Board erred by using the procedure set out
    in 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
    (a)(7) (2003). We have reviewed Chen’s chal-
    lenges to the Board’s use of this streamlined procedure and find them
    to be without merit.
    Accordingly, we deny Chen’s petition for review. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
    quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-2237

Citation Numbers: 78 F. App'x 866

Judges: Luttig, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 10/21/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023