16-1747 Mendoza v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A206 781 669 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 10th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MIGUEL MENDOZA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1747 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Elyssa N. Williams, Formica 24 Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. 29 Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Miguel Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, 6 seeks review of a May 5, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming 7 a January 7, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 8 denying Mendoza’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Miguel Mendoza, No. A206 781 669 (B.I.A. May 11 5, 2016), aff’g No. A206 781 669 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 7, 12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 13 facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Mendoza challenges only the agency’s denial of CAT relief, 15 and we need not consider asylum or withholding of removal. See 16 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). 17 Moreover, his arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief 18 emphasize that he proved that family members were killed in 19 1993. The agency credited that fact, but concluded that 20 Mendoza had not established a likelihood of torture given that 21 his siblings and other relatives had relocated and remained 22 unharmed in Mexico. Mendoza fails to challenge this 23 dispositive finding and we conclude that he has waived any 2 1 meaningful challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 2 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals