09-1504-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Sheppard, IJ
A098 718 248
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 7 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 NAN CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1504-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, New York, New York.
24
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Emily Anne Radford,
3 Assistant Director; Aric A.
4 Anderson, Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Nan Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
14 of China, seeks review of a March 16, 2009 order of the BIA,
15 affirming the January 11, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge
16 (“IJ”) Douglas Sheppard, which denied her application for
17 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Nan Chen, No.
19 A098 718 248 (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 2009), aff’g No. A098 718 248
20 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 11, 2007). We assume the
21 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
22 procedural history in this case.
23 When the BIA does not expressly “adopt” the IJ’s
24 decision, but its brief opinion closely tracks the IJ’s
25 reasoning, we consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
26 “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d
27 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the agency’s factual
2
1 findings under the substantial evidence standard. See
2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510
3 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2007). We review de novo questions
4 of law and the application of law to undisputed fact.
5 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
6 Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are
7 considered waived and normally will not be addressed on
8 appeal in the absence of manifest injustice. Yueqing Zhang
9 v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005);
10 LNC Invs., Inc. v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, N.J., 308 F.3d
11 169, 176 n.8 (2d Cir. 2002) (“While we no doubt have the
12 power to address an argument despite its abandonment on
13 appeal, we ordinarily will not do so ‘unless manifest
14 injustice otherwise would result.’” (quoting Anderson v.
15 Branen, 27 F.3d 29, 30 (2d Cir. 1994))). As the government
16 correctly argues, Chen does not challenge the dispositive
17 findings underlying the agency’s denial of her application
18 for relief, but simply provides several pages of boilerplate
19 law and states in conclusory fashion that she established a
20 well founded fear of future persecution. Because Chen fails
21 to raise any specific arguments challenging the agency’s
22 determination, and we are satisfied that no manifest
23 injustice is implicated here, any such challenge is deemed
3
1 waived. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 n.7.
2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
6 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
7 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
8 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
9 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
13
14 By:___________________________
4