Maoxun Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA agreed with the IJ that Chen’s asylum application was untimely and that he had not established eligibility for withholding of removal or for CAT protection.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the finding that Chen failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances”, which would justify an untimely asylum application. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594-96 (5th Cir.2007).
By failing to brief a challenge to the eligibility determinations for withholding of removal and CAT protection, Chen has abandoned these issues. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Likewise, although Chen asserts in the issue statement of his brief that Congress did not intend the one-year deadline to penalize applicants for asylum, he has abandoned the issue by failing to brief it. See id.
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.