Opinion
16-1747 NAC
07-10-2018
MIGUEL MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
FOR PETITIONER: Elyssa N. Williams, Formica Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of July, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
FOR PETITIONER:
Elyssa N. Williams, Formica Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT.
FOR RESPONDENT:
Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Miguel Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a May 5, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a January 7, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying Mendoza's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Miguel Mendoza, No. A206 781 669 (B.I.A. May 5, 2016), aff'g No. A206 781 669 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 7, 2016). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Mendoza challenges only the agency's denial of CAT relief, and we need not consider asylum or withholding of removal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, his arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief emphasize that he proved that family members were killed in 1993. The agency credited that fact, but concluded that Mendoza had not established a likelihood of torture given that his siblings and other relatives had relocated and remained unharmed in Mexico. Mendoza fails to challenge this dispositive finding and we conclude that he has waived any meaningful challenge to the agency's denial of CAT relief. Id.; see also Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal."). Moreover, we see no error in the agency's reasoning. An applicant for CAT relief has the burden to show a likelihood of torture and the applicant's ability to relocate within his country is an appropriate factor for the agency to consider. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), (3)(ii).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk