Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0079-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TONGZHU LU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
    No. 03-40448-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 16, 2007.
    Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Bradley J. Schlozman, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Jerry L. Short, Assistant United States Attorney, Kansas City, Missouri, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Hon. peter w. hall, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for Attorney General John Ashcroft.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Tongzhu Lu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the August 28, 2003 order of the BIA affirming the March 5, 2002 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) John Opaciuch denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tongzhu Lu, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 28, 2003), aff'g No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 5, 2002). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Where (as here) an alien files a timely petition from the affirmance of the removal order, but not from the denial of a subsequent motion, the Court may review only the affirmance. Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 167 (2d Cir.2004).

Lu’s brief to this Court only challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, and erroneously states that he has never petitioned for review of the decision affirming the removal order. Because Lu’s brief to this Court fails to sufficiently challenge the only BIA decision from which he has appealed, we deem all such arguments waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.