Case Name: DHRUBA BAHADUR SHRESTHA, Diwa Pradhan Shrestha, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-01
Citations: 194 F. App'x 58
Docket Number: No. 06-0872-ag
Parties: DHRUBA BAHADUR SHRESTHA, Diwa Pradhan Shrestha, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 58–59

Head Matter:
DHRUBA BAHADUR SHRESTHA, Diwa Pradhan Shrestha, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 06-0872-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 1, 2006.
H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, David N. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Respondent.
PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Dhruba Bahadur Shrestha and Diwa Pradhan Shrestha, through counsel, seeks review of a January 31, 2006 order of the BIA affirming the October 28, 2004 decision of immigration judge ("IJ") William Van Wyke's denying Dhruba Shrestha's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. In re Dhruba Bahadur Shrestha, Diwa Pradhan Shrestha, Nos. [ AXX XXX XXX ], [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. January 25, 2006), aff'g Nos. [ AXX XXX XXX ], [ AXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 28, 2004). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
We may not review petitioner's arguments regarding the Government's failure to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11(a) because these arguments have not been exhausted at the administrative level. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see generally Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir.2005) (explaining that, in the absence of manifest injustice, petitioners must administratively exhaust the categories of relief they are claiming and the individual issues on which that relief may turn, but not subsidiary legal arguments). Additionally, because the petitioner has failed to sufficiently argue the underlying merits of the agency's decision before this Court, we deem any such arguments waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. The pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.