22-6104 Wu v. Garland BIA Navarro, IJ A088 791 986

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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of January, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT: WILLIAM J. NARDINI, STEVEN J. MENASHI, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

DONG XIAN WU, Petitioner,

v. 22-6104 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Meer M. M. Rahman, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director; Rachel Browning, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner Dong Xian Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of

China, seeks review of a February 4, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming a July 9,

2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). In re Dong Xian Wu, No. A 088 791 986 (B.I.A. Feb. 4, 2022), aff’g No. A

088 791 986 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Wu does not present factual or legal challenges to the agency’s adverse

credibility determination, instead erroneously stating that the agency found him

credible. See Petitioner’s Brief at 5–6. Accordingly, he has abandoned any

challenge to the adverse credibility determination. “We consider abandoned any

claims not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure 2 to make legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” Debique v. Garland,

(2d Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted); see also Yueqing Zhang

v. Gonzales,

, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Norton v. Sam's Club,

(2d Cir. 1998), which holds that “[i]ssues not sufficiently argued in the

briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition because the adverse credibility determination

was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Hong Fei

Gao v. Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018) (“Where the same factual predicate

underlies a petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the CAT, an adverse credibility determination forecloses all three forms of

relief.”).

For the foregoing reason, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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

3