Jie Liu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIE LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74157
Agency No. A079-642-432
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jie Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74157 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Liu filed his asylum
application within a reasonable period of time given any changed circumstances.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479
F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Liu’s asylum claim
fails.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Liu faces a clear probability
of persecution in China on account of the birth of his two United States citizen
children. See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 658; see also Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988
(9th Cir. 2009) (noting BIA’s conclusion in Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I & N Dec. 185
(BIA 2007), that the Chinese government does not have a national policy requiring
forced sterilization of a parent who returns with a second child born outside of
China) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, Liu’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction over Liu’s CAT claim because he did not exhaust it
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74157 3
Finally, Liu’s due process claim that the BIA omitted significant facts is not
supported by the record, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000), and
we lack jurisdiction to review this claim as to the IJ because he did not exhaust it.
See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --