Case Name: XUIFANG ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-26
Citations: 689 F. App'x 10
Docket Number: 16-2697
Parties: XUIFANG ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., JOSÉ A. CABRANES, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 10–12

Head Matter:
XUIFANG ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
16-2697
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 26, 2017
FOR PETITIONER: John Chang, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Assistant Director; Anthony J. Messuri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., JOSÉ A. CABRANES, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Xuifang Zhang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a July 11, 2016, decision of the BIA that affirmed a May 15, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying Zhang's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The BIA also declined to remand the case to the IJ. In re Xuifang Zhang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 11, 2016), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 15, 2015). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). In this case, the agency made the following two (alternate) findings to deny Zhang's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief: (1) she was not credible based on inconsistencies in her evidence; and (2) she failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her religious practice. In addition, on appeal, the BIA denied what it construed as a motion to remand, finding that Zhang failed to submit previously unavailable evidence in support of such motion. As the Government argues, Zhang, through counsel, does not challenge the agency's dispositive bases for denying her application for relief or her motion to remand.
A petitioner's brief to this Court must contain her "contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the [petitioner] relies." Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). "Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal," Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998); Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005), in the absence of manifest injustice, LNC Invs., Inc. v. Nat'l Westminster Bank, N.J., 308 F.3d 169, 176 n.8 (2d Cir. 2002). Because Zhang fails to challenge the agency's dispositive findings — the adverse credibility determination and conclusion that remand was not warranted absent new evidence — we deem any such arguments waived. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 n.1, 545 n.7.
No manifest injustice results from denying Zhang's petition on waiver grounds. The agency reasonably relied on multiple record inconsistencies to find Zhang not credible, which was dispositive of all claims for relief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006), and Zhang did not submit any evidence before the BIA as required to support a motion to remand based on new evidence, see Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have 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 DISMISSED 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 34.1(b).