Liu v. Garland ( 2022 )

20-1456
Liu v. Garland
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A200 676 335
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.
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 7th day of July, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 QINGYAN LIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 20-1456
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhiyuan Qian, Esq., New York, NY
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting
26 Assistant Attorney General;
27 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant
28 Director; Liza S. Murcia,
1 Attorney, Office of Immigration
2 Litigation, United States
3 Department of Justice, Washington,
4 DC
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Qingyan Liu, a native and citizen of the
11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 23, 2020
12 decision of the BIA affirming a July 26, 2018 decision of an
13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering removal following reopening
14 and termination of asylum on account of fraud. In re Qingyan
15 Liu, No. A200 676 335 (B.I.A. Apr. 23, 2020), aff’g No. A200
16 676 335 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 26, 2018). We assume the
17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
18 history.
19 As the Government argues, Liu failed to exhaust before
20 the BIA her challenges to the IJ’s underlying decision to
21 reopen her removal proceedings and terminate a prior grant of
22 asylum. In addition to the statutory requirement that
23 petitioners exhaust the categories of relief they seek,
24 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), petitioners must also raise to the BIA
25 the specific issues they later raise in this Court, see Foster
2
1 v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004). While not
2 jurisdictional, Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d
3 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007), this judicially imposed
4 exhaustion requirement is mandatory. “To preserve an issue
5 for judicial review, the petitioner must first raise it with
6 specificity before the BIA.” Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d
7 114, 117 (2d Cir. 2007). “[G]eneralized protestations . . .
8 lack the specificity required for preservation.” Id.9 Liu challenges the reopening of her removal proceedings
10 and termination of asylum based on fraud, arguing that the
11 preparer of her asylum application had not been convicted of
12 immigration fraud (as some paralegals at his firm had been),
13 the Government had not produced the fraudulent applications
14 that contained strikingly similar language to hers, those
15 similarities were not properly analyzed, and an immigration
16 officer’s affidavit was entitled to limited weight given that
17 she did not testify. But Liu made only a conclusory assertion
18 of error in her notice of appeal to the BIA and did not file
19 a brief. Because she raised none of these specific issues
20 on appeal to the BIA, and because the BIA did not address
21 them in its decision, they are not exhausted. See Ruiz-
22 Martinez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 102, 112 n.7 (2d Cir. 2008);
3
1 Steevenez, 476 F.3d at 117. Accordingly, we deny her
2 petition for review for failure to exhaust. See Steevenez,
3 476 F.3d at 118.
4 We deny Liu’s motion to supplement the record because
5 she did not submit her affidavit to the agency, and we “decide
6 the petition only on the administrative record on which the
7 order of removal is based.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review and
9 motion to supplement the record are DENIED.
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
12 Clerk of Court
13
4