Opinion ID: 2612
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adverse Findings Waived on this Petition

Text: At the outset, we note that petitioner's brief to this court simply repeats, word for word, her brief to the BIA. To the extent the brief fails to cite a single decision of this court in support of the arguments advanced, it obviously fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Counsel is cautioned that the future filing of such an inadequate submission will be grounds not only for rejection of the brief but for formal reprimand or other sanction. For purposes of our review today, however, we note simply that the brief filed with this court does not challenge three significant findings that informed the IJ's adverse credibility determination, specifically, the inconsistencies between Li's relief application and her hearing testimony about the circumstances of her arrest, Li's unconvincing demeanor, and her failure to adduce available corroborative evidence from her husband. Thus, any challenge to these findings is both unexhausted and waived. See Lin Zhong v. United States Dep't of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir.2007) ([O]ur circuit applies an issue exhaustion doctrine to petitions for review from the BIA.); Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005) (Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived .... (quoting Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998))). The waiver is significant because these findings could, by themselves, support an adverse credibility determination in this case. See generally Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73-78 (2d Cir.2004), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. United States Dep't of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir.2007) ( en banc ). We cannot, however, make that decision ourselves, and, for reasons stated in the remainder of this opinion, we cannot confidently predict that the IJ would have so ruled in the absence of other findings to which petitioner did raise objection and which, in light of recent decisions by this court, are erroneous.