Case Name: Manuel Enrique GUZMANDAZA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-06
Citations: 142 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: Docket No. 03-4964-AG
Parties: Manuel Enrique GUZMANDAZA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents.
Judges: PRESENT: JACOBS, KATZMANN, JTTATT/~l--j.TJ and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 537–537

Head Matter:
Manuel Enrique GUZMANDAZA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents.
Docket No. 03-4964-AG.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 6, 2005.
Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, NY, for Petitioner.
Kathryn W. Becnel, Assistant United States, Attorney, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA (Diane Hollenshead Copes, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Jim Letten, United States Attorney, for Respondents.
PRESENT: JACOBS, KATZMANN, JTTATT/~l--j.TJ and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition be DENIED.
Manuel Enrique Guzman-Daza petitions for review of a May 2, 2003 order of the BIA affirming without opinion an October 9, 2001 decision of the Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying Guzman-Daza's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture ("CAT") relief. We assume familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
1. The IJ did not err in denying asylum or withholding of removal relief. The finding that Guzman-Daza failed to produce sufficient, credible evidence of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 177-78 (2d Cir.2004).
2. Even if Guzman-Daza's failure to raise the CAT claim before the BIA does not constitute a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 77-78 (2d Cir.2004) (per curiam), Guzman-Daza waived any independent argument as to the CAT claim. See, e.g., Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. Braunig, 553 F.2d 777, 780 (2d Cir.1977).
We have considered Guzman-Daza's remaining arguments and find each of them to be without merit. The petition is DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.