16-2209
Pasang v. Sessions
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A205 440 632
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 8th day of September, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 TENZIN PASANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-2209
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron,
27 Assistant Director; Meadow Platt,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DISMISSED.
5 Petitioner Tenzin Pasang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 3, 2016,
7 decision of the BIA affirming a March 24, 2015, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting his asylum application
9 as untimely. In re Tenzin Pasang, No. A205 440 632 (B.I.A. June
10 3, 2016), aff’g No. A205 440 632 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 24,
11 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
12 facts and procedural history in this case.
13 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission
14 of Pasang’s asylum application as untimely because he does not
15 raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. See
16 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). He failed to exhaust
17 his argument that changed circumstances in China and India
18 excused the untimely filing of his application. See Lin Zhong
19 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 121-22 (2d Cir. 2007).
20 And, contrary to Pasang’s contention, the agency did not find
21 the regulatory list of extraordinary circumstances exhaustive,
22 but rather noted that Pasang’s claim that he waited longer than
2
1 one year to apply for asylum on the advice of his religious tour
2 guide did not fall within that list and further concluded that
3 his choice to delay based on that advice did not otherwise
4 constitute extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, Pasang
5 has not raised a constitutional claim or question of law over
6 which we may exercise jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C.
7 §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D).
8 Pasang abandons any claim that he should have been granted
9 asylum or withholding of removal as to India. See Yueqing Zhang
10 v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005)
11 (holding that petitioner abandoned issues and claims not
12 sufficiently raised in his brief).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DISMISSED.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3