of persecution against ethnic Chinese or Christians. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) & (2)(iii)(A). See also Wong v. Att’y Gen., 539 F.3d 225, 233-34 (3d Cir.2008) (discussing recent State Department reports concerning the treatment of Chinese Indonesians). In sum, the evidence does not compel us to overturn the BIA’s decision to dismiss Lim’s appeal, and for the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review. 1 . Lim’s husband filed an application for withholding of removal, which was granted in 2006. 2 . The BIA has authority to prescribe its own procedural rules, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(4), and has determined that matters not raised before the IJ are waived. See, e.g., In re R-SH, 23 I. & N. Dec. 629, 638 (BIA 2003); Torres de la Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013, 1023 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, although the BIA did not explicitly
recognizing rule recognizing this as the general rule recognizing that the waiver rule is wholly consistent with the bias rule of practice as an appellate body recognizing this rule recognizing general rule