Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-2048-ag Weng v. U.S. DOJ BIA Hom, IJ A094 923 040 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 NO
Summary: 09-2048-ag Weng v. U.S. DOJ BIA Hom, IJ A094 923 040 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 NOT..
More
09-2048-ag
Weng v. U.S. DOJ
BIA
Hom, IJ
A094 923 040
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 27 th day of April, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 CAI WENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2048-ag
17 NAC
18 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND IMMIGRATION AND
21 NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
22 Respondents.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Cai Weng, pro se, Bellmore, New
26 York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General, Civil Division; Ada E.
30 Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel,
31 Office of Immigration Litigation,
1 Civil Division; Theo Nickerson,
2 Trial Attorney, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, Civil
4 Division, United States Department
5 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Cai Weng, a native and citizen of the
12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 20,
13 2009, order of the BIA affirming the September 27, 2007,
14 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Hom denying his
15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Cai
17 Weng, No. A094 923 040 (B.I.A. Apr. 20, 2009), aff’g No.
18 A094 923 040 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 27, 2007). We
19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
20 and procedural history in this case.
21 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
22 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
23 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
24 applicable standards of review are well-established.
25 Corovic v. Mukasey,
519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008);
26 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 The IJ found that Weng was not credible. The BIA
2 dismissed Weng’s appeal, affirming the IJ’s credibility
3 determination. However, even construing his pro se aguments
4 broadly, Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir.
5 2007), Weng does not mention, much less challenge, the IJ’s
6 adverse credibility determination. Accordingly, Weng has
7 waived any such argument. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
8
426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the only
9 evidence that Weng would be persecuted or tortured depended
10 on his credibility, his failure to challenge that finding is
11 dispositive of his petition for review. See Paul v.
12 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v.
13 U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
16 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
17 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
18 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
19 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
20
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
25
3
