08-4391-ag
Ousmane v. Holder
BIA
Straus, IJ
A098 690 570
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 26 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 TRAORE OUSMANE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-4391-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 1 UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondents.
21 _______________________________________
22 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory C. Osakwe, Hartford,
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
1
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as the respondent in this case.
1 Connecticut.
2
3 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
4 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
5 Director; William C. Minick,
6 Attorney, Office of Immigration
7 Litigation, United States Department
8 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Traore Ousmane, a native and citizen of Togo, seeks
15 review of an August 18, 2008, order of the BIA affirming the
16 November 2, 2006, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
17 Michael W. Straus, which pretermitted his asylum application
18 and denied his applications for withholding of removal and
19 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
20 Traore Ousmane, No. A098 690 570 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2008),
21 aff’g No. A098 690 570 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Nov. 2, 2006).
22 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
23 and procedural history in this case.
24 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
25 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
26 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
27 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
2
1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 Petitioners seeking judicial review have a duty to
4 present their arguments clearly and to support them with
5 citations to relevant legal authority and record evidence.
6 See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (a brief must contain
7 “appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with
8 citations to the authorities and parts of the record on
9 which the appellant relies”). Issues not sufficiently argued
10 in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be
11 addressed on appeal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d
12 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Norton v.
13 Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998)). While we can
14 address an argument despite a waiver of this sort, we
15 ordinarily will not do so unless manifest injustice
16 otherwise would result. See LNC Invs., Inc. v. Nat'l
17 Westminster Bank, 308 F.3d 169, 176 n. 8 (2d Cir. 2002)
18 (citing Anderson v. Branen, 27 F.3d 29, 30 (2d Cir. 1994)).
19 In his brief, Ousmane fails to address in anything more
20 than a general and cursory manner the many findings
21 supporting the agency’s adverse credibility determination
22 and its alternative finding that he failed to articulate a
3
1 cognizable social group. With respect to the assertions he
2 does make, they are wholly conclusory, and he neglects to
3 provide any supporting citations to the administrative
4 record. Accordingly, we find that Ousmane’s brief does not
5 comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). See Sioson v.
6 Knights of Columbus, 303 F.3d 458, 460 (2d Cir. 2002)
7 (declining to reach a claim where no facts were properly
8 cited to the record in the brief’s “argument” section and
9 finding such citations requisite to raising a proper legal
10 argument before the Court). We therefore deem waived any
11 challenge to the agency’s dispositive findings. See Norton,
12 145 F.3d at 117. Ousmane’s failure to challenge those
13 findings is fatal to his petition for review.
14 We are satisfied that no manifest injustice will result
15 from our decision to dispose of this case on waiver grounds.
16 See LNC Invs., Inc., 308 F.3d at 176 n.8. Our review of the
17 record finds ample support for the agency’s adverse
18 credibility determination, which was based in part on
19 Ousmane’s discrepant testimony regarding whether he was ever
20 questioned by police, a crucial element of his claim. See
21 Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 380 (2d Cir. 2007). We
22 also find no error in the agency’s determination that, even
4
1 if credible, Ousmane’s claimed social group was not
2 cognizable under the INA. See Matter of A-M-E & J-G-U-, 24
3 I. & N. Dec. 69, 74-76 (BIA 2007), aff’d by Ucelo-Gomez v.
4 Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73 (2d Cir. 2007).
5 Attorney Gregory C. Osakwe is warned that future
6 briefing of this quality may result in discipline.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
19
5