16-2209 Pasang v. Sessions BIA Schoppert, IJ A205 440 632 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **8 th**  **day of September, two thousand seventeen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 7 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 8 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **TENZIN PASANG,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-2209** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Stuart Altman, New York, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, 26 Assistant Director; Meadow Platt, 27 Trial Attorney, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation, United 29 States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, DC. 312 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 3

DISMISSED. 4 Petitioner Tenzin Pasang, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 3, 2016, 6 decision of the BIA affirming a March 24, 2015, decision of an 7 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting his asylum application 8 as untimely. In re Tenzin Pasang, No. A205 440 632 (B.I.A. June 9 3, 2016), aff’g No. A205 440 632 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 24, 10 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 11 facts and procedural history in this case. 12 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission 13 of Pasang’s asylum application as untimely because he does not 14 raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. See 15 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). He failed to exhaust 16 his argument that changed circumstances in China and India 17 excused the untimely filing of his application. See Lin Zhong 18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 121-22 (2d Cir. 2007). 19 And, contrary to Pasang’s contention, the agency did not find 20 the regulatory list of e xtraordinary circumstances exhaustive, 21 but rather noted that Pasang’s claim that he waited longer than 223 one year to apply for asylum on the advice of his religious tour 1 guide did not fall within that list and further concluded that 2 his choice to delay based on that advice did not otherwise 3 constitute extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, Pasang 4 has not raised a constitutional claim or question of law over 5 which we may exercise jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. 6 §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). 7 Pasang abandons any claim that he should have been granted 8 asylum or withholding of removal as to India. See Yueqing Zhang 9 v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) 10 (holding that petitioner abandoned issues and claims not 11 sufficiently raised in his brief). 12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 13

DISMISSED. 14

FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16