Case Name: Beatriz OSORIO-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-18
Citations: 177 F. App'x 125
Docket Number: No. 05-0948-AG
Parties: Beatriz OSORIO-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States Respondents.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. THOMAS J. MESKILL, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, and Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 125–126

Head Matter:
Beatriz OSORIO-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States Respondents.
No. 05-0948-AG.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 18, 2006.
Ronald S. Salomon, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
David V. Kirby, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Carol L. Shea, Chief, Civil Division, Michael P. Drescher, Assistant United States Attorney, Burlington, Vermont, for Respondent.
PRESENT: Hon. THOMAS J. MESKILL, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, and Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Beatriz Osorio-Vasquez, through counsel, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision reversing the decision of an immigration judge ("U"), and denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
Where, as here, the BIA issues its own independent decision, we review only that decision. See Qun Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 162-64 (2d Cir.2006).
We conclude that the BIA correctly decided that Osorio-Vasquez, a lottery stand operator, failed to prove that she was a member of a "particular social group," as we recently interpreted that term in Hong Ying Gao v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 62, 67-68 (2d Cir.2006). Therefore, the denial of asylum and withholding is affirmed.
Osorio-Vasquez did not address the CAT claim in her brief to this Court, and therefore this claim is deemed waived. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 542 n. 1; Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).