-
09-0604-ag Dong v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A088 533 297 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 2 nd day of February, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _______________________________________ 12 13 HANG YONG DONG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 09-0604-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York. 24 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Michelle Gorden Latour, 3 Assistant Director; Jessica E. 4 Sherman, Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, D.C. 8 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 Hang Yong Dong, a native and citizen of China, seeks 14 review of a February 4, 2009 order of the BIA, affirming the 15 April 28, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas 16 J. Mulligan, which denied his applications for cancellation 17 of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 18 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hang Yong 19 Dong, No. A088 533 297 (B.I.A. Feb. 4, 2009), aff’g No. A088 20 533 297 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 28, 2008). We assume the 21 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 22 procedural history of this case. 23 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both 24 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 25 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey,
514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 26 2008). The applicable standards of review are well- 2 1 established. See Corovic v. Mukasey,
519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d 2 Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d 3 Cir. 2008). 4 I. Application for Cancellation of Removal 5 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of 6 Dong’s application for cancellation of removal based on his 7 failure to establish “exceptional and extremely unusual 8 hardship.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); see also Barco- 9 Sandoval v. Gonzales,
516 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 2008). While 10 we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and 11 questions of law,
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), “we lack 12 jurisdiction to review any legal argument that is so 13 insubstantial and frivolous as to be inadequate to invoke 14 federal-question jurisdiction,” Barco-Sandoval,
516 F.3d at15 40. We also lack jurisdiction to review purported 16 constitutional claims or questions of law when the argument 17 “merely quarrels over the correctness of the factual 18 findings or justification for . . . discretionary choices.” 19 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d 20 Cir. 2006). In this case, although Dong purports to raise 21 errors of law in the agency’s decisions, in substance his 22 arguments are not colorable or simply amount to challenges 3 1 of the agency’s factual findings over which we lack 2 jurisdiction. See Barco-Sandoval,
516 F.3d at 40; see also 3 Xiao Ji Chen,
471 F.3d at 329. Accordingly, we dismiss 4 Dong’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction to the 5 extent that he challenges the agency’s denial of his 6 application for cancellation of removal. 7 II. Applications for Asylum and Withholding of Removal 8 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that 9 Dong failed to establish his eligibility for asylum and 10 withholding of removal based on the birth of his U.S. 11 citizen children. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 12138, 158-73 (2d Cir. 2008). We have previously reviewed the 13 agency’s consideration of similar evidence to that which 14 Dong submitted in this case and have found no error in its 15 conclusion that such evidence was insufficient to establish 16 an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. See
id.17 Accordingly, the agency reasonably denied his applications 18 for asylum and withholding of removal. See Paul v. 19 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 20 III. Application for CAT Relief 21 As the government contends, Dong abandons any challenge 22 to the agency’s denial of his application for CAT relief by 23 failing to raise any such challenge in his brief to this 4 1 Court. See Anderson v. Branen,
27 F.3d 29, 30 (2d Cir. 2 1994). 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the 5 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot. 6 7 FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 9 10 11 5
Document Info
Docket Number: 09-0604-ag
Citation Numbers: 363 F. App'x 137
Judges: Ann, Debra, Hall, Livingston, Peter, Robert, Sack
Filed Date: 2/2/2010
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/1/2023