Qui Fang Wu v. Attorney General of the United States

*Honorable Petrese Tucker, District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
sitting by designation.
1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2563
QUI FANG WU,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(No. A98-478-289)
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 7, 2008
Before: MCKEE, AMBRO, Circuit Judges and
TUCKER,*District Judge
(Opinion Filed: March 25, 2008)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION
MCKEE, Circuit Judge
Qiu Fang Wu petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals that affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review.
I.
Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we
need not set forth the factual or procedural history except insofar as it may be helpful to
our brief discussion. We uphold the BIA’s denial of relief if it is based on “reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
On appeal to the BIA, Wu submitted a brief that made only general and cursory
claims that her testimony was credible and consistent. She did not argue that the IJ was
biased, nor did she propose explanations for the inconsistencies that troubled the IJ or
explain why his adverse credibility holding was not supported by the record. Since
arguments about the IJ’s credibility finding were not raised before the BIA, we lack
jurisdiction to consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)(requiring aliens to exhaust
administrative remedies before petitioning a court for review); Kibinda v. Attorney

-- 2 of 3 --

3
General of United States, 477 F.3d 113, 120 n. 8 (3d Cir. 2007) (refusing to consider a
claim of alien not made before the IJ and BIA for failure to exhaust as required by 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)); Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 594-96(3d Cir. 2003)
(denying review on claims not presented before the BIA for failure to exhaust as required
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), including claim of IJ bias). Given the adverse credibility
ruling, the record clearly supports the denial of relief.
II.
Accordingly, we must deny her petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --