Mok v. Sessions

16-1072 Mok v. Sessions BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A201 110 851 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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 25th day of January , two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AH MOY MOK, AKA MAK AH MOY, AKA MOY 14 MOK, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-1072 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Scott E. Bratton, Margaret Wong & 25 Associates LLC, Cleveland, OH. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristen 30 Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 33 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 5 Petitioner Ah Moy Mok, a native and citizen of Malaysia, 6 seeks review of a March 23, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming 7 a December 18, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 8 denying Mok’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 10 re Ah Moy Mok, No. A201 110 851 (B.I.A. Mar. 23, 2016), aff’g 11 No. A201 110 851 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 18, 2014). We assume 12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 “[W]e review the judgment of the IJ as modified by the BIA’s 15 decision—that is, minus [any] argument[s] for denying relief 16 that w[ere] rejected by the BIA.” Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 17 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we 18 reach only the agency’s denial of Mok’s asylum claim as time 19 barred and its conclusion that she failed to establish that she 20 was a member of a legally cognizable particular social group. 21 Id. Mok has waived any challenge to the denial of CAT relief 22 by not sufficiently arguing ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals