The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-71669•Yilin Zhang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
09-71669Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 2, 2010
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YILIN ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71669
Agency No. A097-867-607
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Yilin Zhang, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
09-71669 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss
in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Zhang’s claim that the transcript of the
hearing testimony was incomplete because he failed to raise the argument before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no
jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition with respect to that claim.
Zhang failed to raise any substantive challenge to the BIA’s denial of his
claims for relief in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.