Okombi v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 226 ( 2010 )

08-4123-ag
Okombi v. Holder
BIA
Abrams IJ
A 097 976 840
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 28 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROGER J. MINER,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 ______________________________________
13
14 ELISABETH OKOMBI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 08-4123-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, *
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Pro se.
2
3 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
4 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
5 Director; Kristina R. Sracic, Trial
6 Attorney, Office of Immigration
7 Litigation, United States Department
8 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Petitioner Elisabeth Okombi, a native and citizen of
15 the Democratic Republic of the Congo, seeks review of a July
16 23, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the October 16, 2006
17 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams
18 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
19 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
20 re Elisabeth Okombi, No. A 097 976 840 (B.I.A. July 23,
21 2008), aff’g No. A 097 976 840 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct.
22 16, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
23 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
24 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
25 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
26 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
27 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
2
1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 As a preliminary matter, we are without jurisdiction to
4 consider Okombi’s challenge to the agency’s determination
5 that her application for asylum was time-barred. 8 U.S.C.
6 § 1158(a)(3) (“No Court shall have jurisdiction to review
7 any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph
8 (2).”); see also Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453
9 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2006). While we retain jurisdiction
10 to consider “constitutional claims or questions of law,”
11 see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Okombi’s brief raises no such
12 claims.
13 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of
14 Okombi’s claim for withholding of removal. The IJ found
15 that, even assuming she suffered past persecution, she did
16 not have an objectively reasonable fear of future
17 persecution because the civil war in Congo is over and the
18 group that allegedly persecuted her, the Cobras, no longer
19 exists. The IJ also found that the current Congolese
20 government gained power “through a democratic process of
21 being elected,” and found “nothing indicating here that they
22 would be attacking her ethnic group or attacking [her]
23 political organization.” Even construing her pro se brief
24 broadly, Okombi does not challenge any of these findings.
3
1 She asserts only that she should have been granted
2 withholding of removal because of past persecution.
3 Accordingly, we have no basis upon which to disturb the
4 agency’s burden of proof finding, and need not reach its
5 credibility determination. Okombi also does not challenge
6 the agency’s denial of her application for CAT relief.
7 Finally, Okombi argues that: (1) she was denied a fair
8 hearing due to repeated translation problems; and (2) the IJ
9 erred in denying her motion for a continuance so that she
10 could be examined by a doctor. However, we decline to
11 consider these unexhausted arguments. See Lin Zhong v. U.S.
12 Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
25
4