13-2004
Ghale v. Holder
BIA
Laforest, IJ
A093 354 155
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.
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 13th day of March, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
RAM GHALE,
Petitioner,
v. 13-2004
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Julie Mullaney, Mount Kisco, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Kathryn L.
DeAngelis, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
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 Ram Ghale, a native and citizen of Nepal,
seeks review of an April 25, 2013 order of the BIA,
affirming the January 30, 2012 decision of an Immigration
Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture. In re Ram
Ghale, No. A093 354 155 (B.I.A. Apr. 25, 2013), aff’g No.
A093 354 155 (Immig. Ct. New York City Jan. 30, 2012). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
The applicable standards of review are well established.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v.
Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
As the government correctly notes, Ghale failed to
exhaust his current challenge to the IJ’s dispositive
adverse credibility determination before the BIA. In
addition to the statutory requirement that petitioners
2
exhaust each category of relief they seek, 8 U.S.C. §
1252(d)(1), petitioners must raise specific issues with the
BIA before raising them in this Court. See Foster v. INS,
376 F.3d 75, 77-78 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Issue
exhaustion is mandatory: “If the government points out to
the appeals court that an issue relied on before that court
by a petitioner was not properly raised below, the court
must decline to consider that issue, except in []
extraordinary situations.” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007). If the BIA
chooses to address an issue that the petitioner failed to
raise, we may, but need not, choose to review the BIA’s
decision on the issue. Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511, 515 n.7
(2d Cir. 1993).
Here, the BIA summarized the grounds for the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination and found no clear error.
Although that description could provide a foothold to review
the adverse credibility determination, we decline to review
it because Ghale has waived review by failing to challenge
the “findings that informed the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination.” Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d
Cir. 2008); see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542
3
n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (“‘Issues not sufficiently argued in the
briefs are considered waived and normally will not be
addressed on appeal.’” (quoting Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145
F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998))).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4