19-807 Paltan-Daquilema v. Garland BIA Hom, IJ A205 703 139 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 6th day of August, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JOSE ANTONIO PALTAN-DAQUILEMA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-807 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. * 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Edgar L. Fankbonner, Goldberger & 24 Dubin, PC, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony C. 28 Payne, Assistant Director; Joseph 29 D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3

4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

7 is DENIED.

8 Petitioner Jose Antonio Paltan-Daquilema, a native and

9 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a February 28, 2019

10 decision of the BIA affirming a November 17, 2017 decision of

11 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for

12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

13 Convention Against Torture. In re Jose Antonio Paltan-

14 Daquilema, No. A205 703 139 (B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2019), aff’g No.

15 A205 703 139 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 17, 2017). We assume

16 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

17 procedural history.

18 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s

19 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the adverse

20 credibility determination that the BIA did not reach. See

21 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d

22 Cir. 2005). We review the findings of the IJ and the BIA

23 under the substantial evidence standard, and we review

2 1 questions of law de novo. See

(b)(4)(B); Wei

2 Sun v. Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018). We review

3 the IJ’s decision to set and enforce filing deadlines for

4 abuse of discretion. See Dedji v. Mukasey,

, 191

5 (2d Cir. 2008).

6 Paltan-Daquilema first argues that the BIA should have

7 remanded these proceedings and directed the IJ to consider

8 evidence submitted by Paltan-Daquilema nearly six months

9 after the IJ’s deadline for evidentiary submissions. But

10 “[t]o preserve an issue for judicial review, the petitioner

11 must first raise it with specificity before the BIA.”

12 Steevenez v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007)

13 (internal citations omitted). Here, Paltan-Daquilema failed

14 to specifically challenge the IJ’s rejection of his late-

15 filed evidence before the BIA. As a result, Paltan-Daquilema

16 failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to that

17 decision, and we will not review this challenge for the first

18 time on appeal.

.

19 Paltan-Daquilema also argues that the BIA “should have

20 reversed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.” Petitioner’s

21 Brief at 24. But the BIA concluded that it did not need to

22 address the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because, “even

3 1 assuming the respondent is credible, [the BIA would] affirm

2 the Immigration Judge's finding that he did not adequately

3 corroborate his claim and did not show that he has a well-

4 founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected

5 ground.” Notably, Paltan-Daquilema has not challenged before

6 this Court the agency’s dispositive finding that he failed to

7 adequately corroborate his claim that he fears persecution as

8 an indigenous evangelical Ecuadorian man who has divorced.

9 Paltan-Daquilema therefore has abandoned this claim. See

10 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,

, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d

11 Cir. 2005) (petitioner abandons claim by not raising it in

12 his brief). And because it was not necessary for the BIA to

13 address the IJ’s credibility findings, much less to reverse

14 the IJ’s credibility findings, the BIA did not err by

15 declining to do so.

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

18 stays VACATED.

19 FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 21 Clerk of Court

4