Lin Hua Liu v. Holder , 446 F. App'x 379 ( 2011 )

10-5084-ag
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A094 816 865
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 29th day of November, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LIN HUA LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-5084-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Douglas B. Payne, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Leslie McKay, Assistant
28 Director; Jessica Segall, Trial
1 Attorney; Anthony J. Messuri, Trial
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States Department
4 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Lin Hua Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s
11 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 30, 2010,
12 order of the BIA affirming the February 12, 2009, decision
13 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, which denied
14 his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
15 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
16 Lin Hua Liu, No. A094 816 865 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2010), aff’g
17 No. A094 816 865 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 12, 2009). We
18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
19 and procedural history in this case. Under the
20 circumstances of this case we have reviewed both the IJ’s
21 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
22 Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008).
23 Liu fails to challenge the agency’s finding that he
24 waived past persecution before the IJ by stating, through
25 counsel, that he was relying on a well-founded fear of
2
1 persecution. Further, despite arguing before the IJ that
2 there was at least a ten percent chance that he had
3 established a well-founded fear of persecution, Liu failed
4 to challenge before this Court the agency’s finding that he
5 failed to establish “other resistance” to China’s family
6 planning policy based on his 1998 encounter with family
7 planning officials and his ensuing flight, as is required to
8 demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
9 Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d
10 Cir. 2007) (en banc). Issues not sufficiently argued in
11 briefs to this Court are considered waived and will not be
12 addressed on appeal. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d
13 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
14 Because Liu waives the agency’s dispositive findings
15 that he conceded past persecution and that he failed to
16 demonstrate a reasonable fear of persecution on account of
17 his “other resistance,” Liu has failed to demonstrate his
18 eligibility for asylum or withholding. As Liu failed to
19 exhaust CAT relief before the BIA, we cannot reach his
20 eligibility for that relief. See Karaj v. Gonzales, 462
21 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 2006).
22
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
4