08-5988-ag
Wei v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A099 535 491
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
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 30 th day of December, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 LIN WEI, a.k.a. WEI LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-5988-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Hualian Law
2 Offices, New York, New York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
5 General; Jennifer L. Lightbody,
6 Senior Litigation Counsel; Edward E.
7 Wiggers, Trial Attorney, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, United
9 States Department of Justice,
10 Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
15 is DENIED.
16 Lin Wei, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
17 of China, seeks review of a November 12, 2008 order of the
18 BIA affirming the January 8, 2007 decision of Immigration
19 Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, which denied his application
20 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
21 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin Wei a.k.a.
22 Wei Lin, No. A099 535 491 (B.I.A. Nov. 12, 2008), aff’g No.
23 A099 535 491 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 8, 2007). We assume
24 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
25 procedural history in this case.
26 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both
27 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
28 completeness.” See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d
2
1 Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
2 established. See Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110
3 (2d Cir. 2008); Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494
4 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
5 Because Wei failed to exhaust before the agency his
6 argument that the agency erred by not considering his
7 eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal as a
8 member of the social group of victims of domestic abuse, we
9 do not address it. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
10 480 F.3d 104, 120-22 (2d Cir. 2007). Wei does not challenge
11 the agency’s dispositive finding that the discrimination he
12 allegedly suffered did not rise to the level of persecution,
13 and that even if it did, it was not on account of a
14 protected ground. Accordingly he has waived any such
15 challenge. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545
16 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). In addition, Wei did not challenge the
17 denial of his request for CAT relief either before the BIA
18 or this Court, abandoning that claim. See Gui Yin Liu v.
19 INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
3
1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
5 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9 By:___________________________
4