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. 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 **10 th**  **day of July, two thousand eighteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 7 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 8 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **MIGUEL MENDOZA,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-1747** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Elyssa N. Williams, Formica 23 Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. 28 Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 322 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

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Miguel Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, 5 seeks review of a May 5, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming 6 a January 7, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 7 denying Mendoza’s application for asylum, withholding of 8 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Miguel Mendoza, No. A206 781 669 (B.I.A. May 10 5, 2016), aff’g No. A206 781 669 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 7, 11 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 12 facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Mendoza challenges only the agency’s denial of CAT relief, 14 and we need not consider asylum or withholding of removal. See 15 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 Moreover, his arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief 17 emphasize that he proved that family members were killed in 18 1993. The agency credited that fact, but concluded that 19 Mendoza had not established a likelihood of torture given that 20 his siblings and other relatives had relocated and remained 21 unharmed in Mexico. Mendoza fails to challenge this 22 dispositive finding and we conclude that he has waived any 233 meaningful challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 1

Id .; see also Norton v. Sam’s Club , 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 2 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are 3 considered waived and normally will not be addressed on 4 appeal.”). Moreover, we see no error in the agency’s 5 reasoning. An applicant for CAT relief has the burden to show 6 a likelihood of torture and the applicant’s ability to relocate 7 within his country is an appropriate factor for the agency to 8 consider. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), (3)(ii). 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10

DENIED. 11

FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 13