HUANG v. GARLAND (2021)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yun Qing Huang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a November 16, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a April 6, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yun Qing Huang, No. A XXX XX8 609 (B.I.A. Nov. 16, 2017), aff'g No. A XXX XX8 609 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 6, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Our review is limited to the reasons given by the BIA, and “we may consider only those issues that formed the basis for that decision.” Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). The BIA concluded that Huang failed to meaningfully challenge the dispositive adverse credibility determination. Huang's notice of appeal to the BIA and her ensuing brief alleged briefly that she was credible and that her testimony should have been given more weight, but she did not identify any specific errors in the IJ's decision. By neglecting to raise any specific arguments before the BIA, Huang failed to exhaust the issues she now attempts to raise in this Court. See id. at 119–20; Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding challenges to inconsistency findings unexhausted when not challenged before the BIA).

Moreover, Huang has waived any challenge to the BIA's finding that she failed to sufficiently challenge the adverse credibility determination on appeal. Her brief does not address the BIA's dismissal of her appeal based on her waiver of the adverse credibility determination and her opposition to summary denial conceded that she did not meaningfully develop her arguments. Although that opposition asserted that the general reference to credibility was sufficient to exhaust, she relied on non-binding precedent and has not further fleshed out that argument by filing a reply brief. Huang has not exhausted the specific issues she now raises, see Shunfu Li, 529 F.3d at 146, and has not sufficiently challenged the BIA's grounds for dismissal, see Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.