Case ID: f-appx_210/html/0080-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ZHAN FONE YAUNG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
    No. 04-2011-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 26, 2006.
    Karen Jaffe, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Steven M. Biskupic, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Koenig, Assistant United States Attorney, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. ROGER J. MINER, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Zhan Fone Yaung, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a March 31, 2004 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen its December 2003 order adopting and affirming immigration judge (“IJ”) Roxanne Hladylowycz’s July 2002 decision denying Yaung’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhan Fone Yaung, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. March 31, 2004). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir.2004) (citing Brice v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 806 F.2d 415, 419 (2d Cir.1986)).

Yaung does not present any issue reviewable by this Court. At issue is only the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, not the agency’s adverse credibility finding. Yaung’s brief argues only that the IJ erred in finding him not credible; he has thus waived any challenges to the denial of his motion to reopen. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n. 1, 546 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reason, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).