Lubaki Zala v. Wilkinson ( 2021 )

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, 426 F.3d
24 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
25 are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Gonzales, 562 F.3d
26 510, 513 (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, 922 F.3d 101, 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, 922 F.3d at 110. 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, 420 F.3d 70, 77 (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, 780 F.3d 553, 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, 480 F.3d 104,
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, 426 F.3d 540, 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. Id.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