Fengyi Chen v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FENGYI CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72013
Agency No. A088-092-606
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Fengyi Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 12-72013
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID
Act. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083, 1089-91 (9th Cir. 2011). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Chen references in his opening brief that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s contention regarding China’s “exit
laws,” because he did not raise it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chen did not
sufficiently corroborate his claim. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th
Cir. 2009) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s corroborative
evidence satisfied his burden of proof). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. See id. at 1046-47.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Chen’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 12-72013
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --