19-1282 Lubaki Zala v. Wilkinson BIA Hochul, IJ A206 864 847 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 25th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YVES LUBAKI ZALA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1282 17 NAC 18 MONTY WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Stephen K. Tills, Esq., Orchard 25 Park, NY. 26

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 2 Assistant Attorney General; 3 Anthony C. Payne , Assistant 4 Director; Joseph D. Hardy, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC.

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 Petitioner Yves Lubaki Zala, a native and citizen of the

14 Democratic Republic of Congo, seeks review of an April 8,

15 2019, decision of the BIA affirming an August 15, 2017,

16 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying asylum,

17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yves Lubaki Zala, No. A 206

19 864 847 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2019), aff’g No. A 206 864 847

20 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Aug. 15, 2017). We assume the parties’

21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

22 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the

23 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review

25 are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for 2 1 substantial evidence and questions of law and application of

2 law to fact de novo).

3 The IJ had jurisdiction over Zala’s removal proceedings.

4 See Banegas Gomez v. Barr,

, 110–12 (2d Cir.

5 2019). Zala, argues that, under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.

6 Ct. 2105 (2018), because his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) lacked

7 a hearing date and time, it was insufficient to vest the

8 immigration court with jurisdiction over his removal

9 proceedings. Pereira addresses a narrow question regarding

10 the stop-time rule and does not “void jurisdiction in cases

11 in which an NTA omits a hearing time or place.” Banegas

12 Gomez,

. Although Zala’s NTA did not specify

13 the time and date of his initial hearing, he received hearing

14 notices specifying that information and he attended his

15 hearings.

16 Zala also argues that the BIA failed to adequately

17 explain its reasoning when it affirmed the IJ’s adverse

18 credibility determination. We generally “require a certain

19 minimum level of analysis from the IJ and BIA opinions denying

20 asylum.” Poradisova v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir.

21 2005). But where, as here, the BIA affirmed the adverse

22 credibility determination because Zala had not meaningfully

3 1 challenged it, our review is limited to that determination.

2 See Prabhudial v. Holder,

, 555–56 (2d Cir. 2015)

3 (limiting review to BIA’s conclusion that argument was

4 waived); Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

,

5 122 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining that our review is limited to

6 the reasons given by the BIA and issues not raised before the

7 BIA are unexhausted and generally not reviewable). The BIA

8 did not err in finding no meaningful challenge. On appeal

9 to the BIA, Zala included only a few cursory sentences and

10 failed to challenge any of the findings underlying the IJ’s

11 adverse credibility determination. See Yueqing Zhang v.

12 Gonzales,

, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding claim

13 abandoned where raised in “single conclusory sentence”).

14 Because Zala does not otherwise challenge the merits of the

15 agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

16 relief, we do not further review the agency’s conclusion that

17 he failed to meet his burden of proof.

18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

19 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

20 stays VACATED.

21 FOR THE COURT: 22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 23 Clerk of Court

4