Filed: Dec. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-2454 Mumbembe v. Lynch BIA Montante, IJ A088 939 618 A089 002 689/690/691 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 ELECTRON
Summary: 14-2454 Mumbembe v. Lynch BIA Montante, IJ A088 939 618 A089 002 689/690/691 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 ELECTRONI..
More
14-2454
Mumbembe v. Lynch
BIA
Montante, IJ
A088 939 618
A089 002 689/690/691
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 10th day of December, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 PETER W. HALL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 JAMES MUMBEMBE, AKA LOURENCO
15 MALUNGO, NZOLA BETHY MUMBEMBE, AKA
16 DIMBO KIAKANDA MALUNGO, BOUGEOISY
17 MUMBEMBE, AKA ELSA NZOLAMESSO
18 MALUNGO, JOE MUMBEMBE, AKA
19 ELDORADO NZOLAMESSO MALUNGO,
20 Petitioners,
21
22 v. 14-2454
23 NAC
24 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
25 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
26 Respondent.
27 _____________________________________
28
29
1 FOR PETITIONER: Michael E. Marszalkowski, Buffalo,
2 New York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
5 Attorney General; Jesse Bless,
6 Senior Litigation Counsel; Lindsay
7 W. Zimliki, Trial Attorney, Office
8 of Immigration Litigation, U.S.
9 Department of Justice, Washington,
10 D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
15 DENIED.
16 Petitioners seek review of a June 2, 2014, decision of the
17 BIA affirming the June 7, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge
18 (“IJ”), denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
19 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re James
20 Mumbembe, Nzola Bethy Mumbembe, Bougeoisy Mumbembe, and Joe
21 Mumbembe, Nos. A088 939 618, A089 002 689/690/691 (B.I.A. June
22 2, 2014), aff’g Nos. A088 939 618, A089 002 689/690/691 (Immig.
23 Ct. Buffalo June 7, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity
24 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
25 The agency made the following two (alternate) dispositive
26 findings: (1) Petitioners were not credible and failed to
27 rehabilitate their testimony with evidence corroborating their
28 claims for relief from removal to either the Democratic Republic
2
1 of Congo (“DRC”) or Angola; and (2) Petitioners failed to
2 satisfy their burden of proof regarding either country because
3 they failed to demonstrate that they are citizens of the DRC
4 and they did not demonstrate past persecution, a well-founded
5 fear of persecution, or a likelihood of torture in Angola.
6 Petitioners, through counsel, do not challenge the agency’s
7 adverse credibility determination, which was dispositive of
8 their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
9 as to both the DRC and Angola.
10 A petitioner’s brief to this Court must contain his
11 “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the
12 authorities and parts of the record on which the [petitioner]
13 relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Issues not
14 sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and
15 normally will not be addressed on appeal in the absence of
16 manifest injustice. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,
17 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (Sotomayor, J.); LNC Invs., Inc.
18 v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, N.J.,
308 F.3d 169, 176 n.8 (2d Cir.
19 2002) (Sotomayor, J.) (“While we no doubt have the power to
20 address an argument despite its abandonment on appeal, we
21 ordinarily will not do so ‘unless manifest injustice otherwise
22 would result.’” (quoting Anderson v. Branen,
27 F.3d 29, 30 (2d
23 Cir. 1994) (per curiam))). Because Petitioners fail to
3
1 challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that they were not
2 credible, we deem any such argument waived. See Yueqing Zhang,
3 426 F.3d at 541 n.1, 545 n.7.
4 We note that there is no merit to Petitioners’ contention
5 that the agency erred in determining that they are citizens of
6 Angola. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d
7 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that determination of the
8 weight of evidence is largely matter of IJ discretion); see also
9 Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there
10 are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s
11 choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” (internal
12 quotation marks omitted)). And they do not challenge the
13 agency’s determination that they failed to satisfy their burden
14 of demonstrating eligibility for asylum, withholding of
15 removal, and CAT relief from Angola. See Yueqing Zhang,
426
16 F.3d at 541 n.1, 545 n.7.
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
21
22
23
4
1 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
2 in this petition is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);
3 Second Circuit Local R. 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
