Meiqin Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1622 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1622 MEIQIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed opinion. in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam Meiqin Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Laura M.L. Maroldy, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Meiqin Chen, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection challenges the under the Convention Against Torture. Chen first finding below that no exception applied to excuse the untimely filing of her asylum application. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), the Attorney General s decision regarding whether an alien has complied with the one-year time limit for filing an application for asylum, or has established changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit, is not reviewable by any court. See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) provides that nothing in any other provision of this chapter . . . which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law, this court has held that the question of whether an asylum application is untimely or whether the changed or extraordinary circumstances exception applies is factual circumstances. a discretionary determination Gomis, 571 F.3d at 358. based on Accordingly, absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, our 2 review of the issue is not authorized by § 1252(a)(2)(D). Because Chen fails to raise any jurisdiction to review this finding. such issues, we Id. lack We therefore dismiss the petition for review of Chen s asylum claim. Next, Chen disputes the conclusion that she failed to qualify for the relief of withholding of removal. Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that her life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. quotation marks conclude that omitted). Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359 (internal We substantial have evidence reviewed the supports record the and agency s determination that Chen failed to demonstrate past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution. Because the evidence does not compel us to conclude to the contrary, we uphold the denial of relief. See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 788 (2012). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Chen did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to China so as to qualify for protection under the Convention Against § 1208.16(c)(2). 3 Torture. See 8 C.F.R. We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART 4
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.
