19-872 Shao v. Garland BIA Lamb, IJ A073 658 075 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 29th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges, JOHN L. SINATRA, JR.,* District Judge. _____________________________________ WEILING SHAO, Petitioner, v. 19-872 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Alexander Kwok-Ho Yu, Law Office of Alexander K. Yu, Esq., North Brunswick, NJ. * Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, sitting by designation. FOR RESPONDENT: Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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 Weiling Shao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 6, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming decisions of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering her deportation and denying adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Weiling Shao, No. A073 658 075 (B.I.A. Mar. 6, 2019), aff’g No. A073 658 075 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 12, 2017 and Feb. 17, 1998). We assume the reader’s familiarity with the record. We have reviewed the IJ’s decisions as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). As an initial matter, although Shao mentions her CAT claim in her brief, she devotes no argument to the issue, and thus we deem it abandoned. 1 See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 1Shao also failed to exhaust the merits of her CAT claim before the BIA. She also has not challenged the agency’s conclusion that she was barred from asylum and withholding of deportation. 2 Accordingly, we address only the agency’s denial of adjustment of status and an inadmissibility waiver. Our review of the denial of discretionary relief, including adjustment of status under …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals