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.

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 

8th 4 day of September, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 TENZIN PASANG, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 16-2209 

17 NAC 

18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, New York, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

26 Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, 

27 Assistant Director; Meadow Platt, 

28 Trial Attorney, Office of 

29 Immigration Litigation, United 

30 States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, DC. 
2 

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. 

5 Petitioner Tenzin Pasang, a native and citizen of the 

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 3, 2016, 

7 decision of the BIA affirming a March 24, 2015, decision of an 

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting his asylum application 

9 as untimely. In re Tenzin Pasang, No. A205 440 632 (B.I.A. June 

10 3, 2016), aff’g No. A205 440 632 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 24, 

11 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

12 facts and procedural history in this case. 

13 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission 

14 of Pasang’s asylum application as untimely because he does not 

15 raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. See

16 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). He failed to exhaust 

17 his argument that changed circumstances in China and India 

18 excused the untimely filing of his application. See Lin Zhong 

19 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 121-22 (2d Cir. 2007). 

20 And, contrary to Pasang’s contention, the agency did not find 

21 the regulatory list of extraordinary circumstances exhaustive, 

22 but rather noted that Pasang’s claim that he waited longer than 
3 

1 one year to apply for asylum on the advice of his religious tour 

2 guide did not fall within that list and further concluded that 

3 his choice to delay based on that advice did not otherwise 

4 constitute extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, Pasang 

5 has not raised a constitutional claim or question of law over 

6 which we may exercise jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. 

7 §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). 

8 Pasang abandons any claim that he should have been granted 

9 asylum or withholding of removal as to India. See Yueqing Zhang 

10 v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) 

11 (holding that petitioner abandoned issues and claims not 

12 sufficiently raised in his brief). 

13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

14 DISMISSED. 

15 FOR THE COURT: 

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk