23-6904 Hossain v. Bondi BIA A208 613 421

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 3rd day of November, two thousand twenty-five.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

DELOWAR HOSSAIN, Petitioner,

v. 23-6904 NAC PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Xiaotao Wang, Law Office of Xiaotao Wang, P.C., New York, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Sheri R. Glaser, Senior Litigation Counsel; Yanal H. Yousef, 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 Delowar Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks

review of a July 14, 2023 decision of the BIA denying reconsideration of its

summary affirmance of a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). In re Delowar Hossain, No. A208 613 421 (B.I.A. July 14, 2023). We assume

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Hossain’s petition is timely as to the BIA’s July 2023 decision denying his

motion to reconsider but not timely as to the underlying March 2023 decision

summarily affirming the IJ’s decision. Thus, the decision denying reconsideration

2 is the only one before us. See

(b)(1) (“The petition for review must

be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); Kaur

v. BIA,

(2d Cir. 2005) (concluding that review is limited to the

BIA’s denial of a motion where no petition was filed from the underlying decision

denying asylum).

In his brief, Hossain does not specifically challenge the BIA’s denial of

reconsideration, and he argues instead that the IJ and BIA erred in denying

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Hossain has thus abandoned

review of the BIA’s reasons for denying reconsideration—namely, that his motion

did not identify errors in the prior decision and that the BIA’s decision to

summarily affirm the IJ was proper and not subject to reconsideration. See Debique

v. Garland,

, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (“We consider abandoned any claims

not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure to make

legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” (quotation marks omitted)).

Because Hossain does not challenge the only decision before this Court, we deny

the petition for review.

at 684–85; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (providing that a

3 motion to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order

and shall be supported by pertinent authority”).

For the foregoing reasons, 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

4