Filed: Sep. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-1066 Mayen Figueroa v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A089 082 433 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 (
Summary: 16-1066 Mayen Figueroa v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A089 082 433 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 (W..
More
16-1066
Mayen Figueroa v. Sessions
BIA
Loprest, IJ
A089 082 433
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 8th day of September, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MARCOS MAYEN FIGUEROA, AKA MARCOS
14 MAYENFIGUEROA, AKA MARCOS DOROTEO
15 MILIAN GALVEZ, AKA MARCOS FIGUEROA
16 GALVEZ, AKA MARCOS MAYEN,
17 Petitioner,
18
19 v. 16-1066
20 NAC
21 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
22 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
23 Respondent.
24 _____________________________________
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
29 Assistant Attorney General, John S.
30 Hogan, Assistant Director, Laura
31 M.L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Office
32 of Immigration Litigation, United
33 States Department of Justice,
34 Washington, DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Marcos Mayen Figueroa, a native and citizen of
6 Guatemala, seeks review of a March 11, 2016 decision of the BIA
7 affirming an August 27, 2015 decision of an Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) denying Mayen Figueroa’s application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
10 Torture (“CAT”). In re Marcos Mayen Figueroa, No. A089 082 433
11 (B.I.A. Mar. 11, 2016), aff’g No. A089 082 433 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.
12 City Aug. 27, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
15 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s
16 alternative findings on past persecution and the likelihood of
17 future persecution, which the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong
18 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 We deny the petition because Mayen Figueroa has failed to
20 challenge the dispositive adverse credibility determination.
21 An adverse credibility determination, on its own,
22 constitutes substantial evidence that Mayen Figueroa has failed
23 to carry his burden of proof. Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386
2
1 F.3d 66, 79 (2d Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Shi
2 Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007).
3 Moreover, the adverse credibility ruling was a dispositive
4 basis for the denial of withholding of removal, the only form
5 of relief the denial of which Mayen Figueroa challenges here.
6 See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 Although the IJ relied on multiple grounds for denial, the
8 adverse credibility determination was the BIA’s sole basis for
9 denying withholding of removal; therefore, a successful
10 challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility determination is
11 essential to Mayen Figueroa’s petition.
12 We conclude that Mayen Figueroa has abandoned any such
13 challenge by failing to argue credibility in his brief.
14 “Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered
15 waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.” Norton
16 v. Sam’s Club,
145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998); see Yueqing
17 Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005)
18 (declining to consider argument where petitioner “devot[ed]
19 only a single conclusory sentence to the argument”). Here,
20 although Mayen Figueroa’s brief references “credible
21 evidence,” he argues only that he satisfied his burden by
22 demonstrating a likelihood of persecution. He does not address
23 any specific credibility ruling, much less provide any reason
3
1 why the IJ and BIA’s credibility findings—based on his
2 inconsistent testimony, evasive demeanor, and lack of
3 corroborating evidence—were in error. It is not enough for a
4 petitioner to identify a challenged ground in his brief; he must
5 also argue that challenge. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 545
6 n.7.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
12 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
14 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
