Case ID: f-appx_553/html/0102-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jihad BOUKHARI, aka Jihad Mounit Boukhari, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-3155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 7, 2014.
    
      Serghei Potorac, Falls Church, VA, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy, Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lauren E. Fascett, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, REENA RAGGI and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Jihad Boukhari, a native of Kuwait and citizen of Lebanon, seeks review of a July 13, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the January 27, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip J. Montante, Jr., which denied Boukhari’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jihad Boukhari, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 13, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Jan. 27, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

In his counseled brief, Boukhari fails to address or even acknowledge the agency’s adverse credibility determination. As we do not find that manifest injustice would result if we decline to review the agency’s adverse credibility determination, we deem waived any challenge to that determination. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Accordingly, the finding stands as a dis-positive basis for the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have 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 DISMISSED 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 34.1(b).