Filed: Apr. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 17-2171 Magomedov v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A089 327 573 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 N
Summary: 17-2171 Magomedov v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A089 327 573 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..
More
17-2171
Magomedov v. Barr
BIA
Wright, IJ
A089 327 573
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 12th day of April, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ALIHAN ZAURBEKOVICH MAGOMEDOV,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-2171
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Alexander J. Segal, The Law
24 Offices of Grinberg & Segal,
25 P.L.L.C., New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
28 Attorney General; Leslie McKay,
29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Margot
30 L. Carter, Trial Attorney, Office
31 of Immigration Litigation, United
32 States Department of Justice,
33 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
4 is DISMISSED.
5 Petitioner Alihan Zaurbekovich Magomedov, a native and
6 citizen of Kyrgyzstan, seeks review of a June 21, 2017,
7 decision of the BIA affirming a December 14, 2016, decision
8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Magomedov’s
9 application for withholding of removal and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Alihan
11 Zaurbekovich Magomedov, No. A 089 327 573 (B.I.A. June 21,
12 2017), aff’g No. A 089 327 573 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 14,
13 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
15 Our review is limited to the reasons given by the BIA,
16 and “we may consider only those issues that formed the basis
17 for that decision.” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480
18 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). Magomedov did not file a brief
19 to the BIA or otherwise raise any arguments or allege any
20 specific errors in the IJ’s decision. Accordingly, he failed
21 to exhaust his claims for withholding of removal and CAT
22 protection. A petitioner must raise to the BIA the specific
2
1 issues he raises in this Court. See Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d
2 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004). This exhaustion requirement is
3 mandatory. Lin
Zhong, 480 F.3d at 107 n.1. Magomedov’s
4 general allegation in his notice of appeal that he met his
5 burden of proof does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
6 See Brito v. Mukasey,
521 F.3d 160, 164 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[I]n
7 order to preserve an issue for review by this Court, the
8 petitioner must not only raise it before the BIA, but do so
9 with specificity.”); Karaj v. Gonzales,
462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d
10 Cir. 2006) (“failure to make any argument to the BIA in
11 support of . . . withholding-of-removal claim or to identify,
12 even by implication, any error in the IJ’s ruling . . . bars
13 our consideration of that claim”); cf. Yueqing Zhang v.
14 Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding claim
15 abandoned where petitioner “devote[d] only a single
16 conclusory sentence to the argument”).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, any pending
19 motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as
20 moot.
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3
