Qiao Yan Zou v. U.S. Department of Justice ( 2010 )

08-4240-ag
Zou v. U.S. Department of Justice
BIA
Hom, IJ
A98 347 954
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 9 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, *
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _______________________________________
11
12 QIAO YAN ZOU, **
13 Petitioner,
14
15 v. 08-4240-ag
16 NAC
17 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ATTORNEY
18 GENERAL & IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICES,
19 Respondents.
*
The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, originally a member of
the panel, was elevated to the Supreme Court on August 8,
2009. The two remaining members of the panel, who are in
agreement, have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d);
Local Rule 0.14(2); United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457(2d Cir. 1998).
**
In her brief, the Petitioner indicates that the proper
spelling of her name is “Qiao Yan Zou.” The clerk’s office is
directed to make this change on the official caption.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Qiao Yan Zou, pro se, Brooklyn, N.Y.
2
3 FOR RESPONDENTS: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
4 Attorney General; Anthony W.
5 Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel;
6 Shahrzad Baghai, Trial Attorney,
7 Office of Immigration Litigation,
8 United States Department of Justice,
9 Washington, D.C.
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
14 is DENIED.
15 Qiao Yan Zou, a native and citizen of China, seeks
16 review of an August 8, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the
17 August 22, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy
18 Hom, which denied her application for asylum, withholding of
19 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
20 (“CAT”). In re Qiao Yang Zhou, No. A98 347 954 (B.I.A. Aug.
21 8, 2008), aff’g No. A98 347 954 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug.
22 22, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
23 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
24 We need not reach the merits of the agency’s adverse
25 credibility determination because Zou waived any challenge
26 to that determination . In her brief to this Court, Zou
27 states that she disagrees with the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions,
28 but does not acknowledge that the agency rendered an adverse
2
1 credibility determination, much less argue that such
2 determination was in error. Although we liberally construe
3 the papers filed by pro se litigants, see Marmolejo v.
4 United States, 196 F.3d 377, 378 (2d Cir. 1999), we “need
5 not manufacture claims of error for an appellant proceeding
6 pro se,” LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93 (2d
7 Cir. 1995); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (noting
8 that an appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s
9 contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the
10 authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
11 relies”). Accordingly, any challenge to the agency’s
12 adverse credibility determination is deemed waived. See
13 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
14 (2d Cir. 2005)
15 Because Zou waived any challenge to the agency’s
16 adverse credibility determination, and because that finding
17 was dispositive of each of her applications for relief, we
18 deny the petition for review. See Paul v. Gonzalez, 444
19 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). ***
***
We note that even if we were to review the credibility
determination, it was supported by substantial evidence where it was
properly based on: (1) inconsistencies regarding Zou’s claim that
she was arrested for participating in an underground Christian
church; (2) inconsistencies regarding her claim that she was beaten
while detained; (3) lack of corroboration; and (4) the IJ’s finding
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
3 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
8
that her demeanor indicated that she was not testifying credibly.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
77, 79-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
4