16-1747 

Mendoza v. Sessions 

BIA 

Straus, IJ 

A206 781 669 

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 

10th 4 day of July, two thousand eighteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 RALPH K. WINTER,

8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 MIGUEL MENDOZA, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 16-1747 

17 NAC 

18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 

19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Elyssa N. Williams, Formica 

24 Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 

28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. 

29 Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of 

30 Immigration Litigation, United 

31 States Department of Justice, 

32 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 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Miguel Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

6 seeks review of a May 5, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming 

7 a January 7, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

8 denying Mendoza’s application for asylum, withholding of 

9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

10 (“CAT”). In re Miguel Mendoza, No. A206 781 669 (B.I.A. May 

11 5, 2016), aff’g No. A206 781 669 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 7, 

12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

13 facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Mendoza challenges only the agency’s denial of CAT relief, 

15 and we need not consider asylum or withholding of removal. See

16 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). 

17 Moreover, his arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief 

18 emphasize that he proved that family members were killed in 

19 1993. The agency credited that fact, but concluded that 

20 Mendoza had not established a likelihood of torture given that 

21 his siblings and other relatives had relocated and remained 

22 unharmed in Mexico. Mendoza fails to challenge this 

23 dispositive finding and we conclude that he has waived any 
3

1 meaningful challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 

2 Id.; see also Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 

3 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are 

4 considered waived and normally will not be addressed on 

5 appeal.”). Moreover, we see no error in the agency’s 

6 reasoning. An applicant for CAT relief has the burden to show 

7 a likelihood of torture and the applicant’s ability to relocate 

8 within his country is an appropriate factor for the agency to 

9 consider. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), (3)(ii). 

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

11 DENIED. 

12 FOR THE COURT: 

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk