Fen Chen v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., No. 07-3016 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. The record supports the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determinations, and the petition for review is denied.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-3016 ___________ Fen Hao Chen, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,1 Attorney General, * * * * * * * * * Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent. ___________ Submitted: March 6, 2009 Filed: March 16, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ 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.2 Having carefully reviewed the 1 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. 2 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 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, 128 S. Ct. 2466 (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 BIA. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 986 n.4 (8th Cir. 2005). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
