MAGOMEDOV v. BARR (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Alihan Zaurbekovich MAGOMEDOV, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent.

17-2171

Decided: April 12, 2019

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. FOR PETITIONER: Alexander J. Segal, The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, P.L.L.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; Margot L. Carter, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Alihan Zaurbekovich Magomedov, a native and citizen of Kyrgyzstan, seeks review of a June 21, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a December 14, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Magomedov's application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Alihan Zaurbekovich Magomedov, No. A XXX XX7 573 (B.I.A. June 21, 2017), aff'g No. A XXX XX7 573 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 14, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

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). Magomedov did not file a brief to the BIA or otherwise raise any arguments or allege any specific errors in the IJ's decision. Accordingly, he failed to exhaust his claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection. A petitioner must raise to the BIA the specific issues he raises in this Court. See Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004). This exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Lin Zhong, 480 F.3d at 107 n.1. Magomedov's general allegation in his notice of appeal that he met his burden of proof does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See Brito v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 160, 164 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[I]n order to preserve an issue for review by this Court, the petitioner must not only raise it before the BIA, but do so with specificity.”); Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (“failure to make any argument to the BIA in support of ․ withholding-of-removal claim or to identify, even by implication, any error in the IJ's ruling ․ bars our consideration of that claim”); cf. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding claim abandoned where petitioner “devote[d] only a single conclusory sentence to the argument”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.