“Where the same factual predicate underlies a petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, an adverse credibility determination forecloses all three forms of relief.”
How later courts described this case
- “Where the same factual predicate underlies a petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, an adverse credibility determination forecloses all three forms of relief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
22-6104
Wu v. Garland
BIA
Navarro, IJ
A088 791 986
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of January, two thousand
twenty-four.
PRESENT:
WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
STEVEN J. MENASHI,
ALISON J. NATHAN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
DONG XIAN WU,
Petitioner,
v. 22-6104
NAC
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Meer M. M. Rahman, Esq., New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General; Keith I. McManus,
Assistant Director; Rachel Browning, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Dong Xian Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, seeks review of a February 4, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming a July 9,
2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). In re Dong Xian Wu, No. A 088 791 986 (B.I.A. Feb. 4, 2022), aff’g No. A
088 791 986 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity
with the underlying facts and procedural history.
Wu does not present factual or legal challenges to the agency’s adverse
credibility determination, instead erroneously stating that the agency found him
credible. See Petitioner’s Brief at 5–6. Accordingly, he has abandoned any
challenge to the adverse credibility determination. “We consider abandoned any
claims not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure
2
to make legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” Debique v. Garland,
58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted); see also Yueqing Zhang
v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d
114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998), which holds that “[i]ssues not sufficiently argued in the
briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal”).
Accordingly, we deny the petition because the adverse credibility determination
was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Hong Fei
Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Where the same factual predicate
underlies a petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the CAT, an adverse credibility determination forecloses all three forms of
relief.”).
For the foregoing reason, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court
3