CHENGDI CHEN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-73151 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 24 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHENGDI CHEN, No. 10-73151 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-293-364 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Chengdi 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand. We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s contentions regarding the untimely filing of his asylum application because he failed to raise these arguments to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). In upholding the IJ’s denial of relief, the BIA found Chen failed to submit reasonable corroboration related to his participation in a home church in China. In reaching this determination, the BIA did not have the benefit of the court’s intervening decision in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Chen’s withholding of removal claim, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 2 10-73151

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.