Court Opinion

ID: 9961577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:01:19.21011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:15.868191
License: Public Domain

21-6567
     Mansurov v. Garland
                                                                                       BIA
                                                                                Brennan, IJ
                                                                               A097 524 268

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.

 1         At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
 3   City of New York, on the 19th day of April, two thousand twenty-four.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6                    RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
 7                    WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
 8                    MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN,
 9                    Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   FIRUZ MANSUROV,
13            Petitioner,
14
15                    v.                                             21-6567
16                                                                   NAC
17   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
18   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
19              Respondent.
20   _____________________________________
21
22
23
24
 1   FOR PETITIONER:                             Matthew L. Guadagno, Law Office of Matthew
 2                                               L. Guadagno, New York, NY.
 3
 4   FOR RESPONDENT:                             Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
 5                                               Attorney General; Jonathan A. Robbins,
 6                                               Assistant Director; Erik R. Quick, Trial
 7                                               Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
 8                                               United States Department of Justice,
 9                                               Washington, DC.

10          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

11   Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

12   DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

13          Petitioner Firuz Mansurov, who was born in the Soviet Union and is now a

14   citizen of Uzbekistan, seeks review of a September 27, 2021 decision of the BIA

15   affirming an October 2, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his

16   application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

17   Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re Firuz Mansurov, No. A097 524 268 (B.I.A. Sep. 27, 2021),

     1
       Mansurov was ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for overstaying his visa and
     under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) for having a single conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude
     (“CIMT”). Although there is a jurisdiction-stripping provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) that
     limits judicial review of removal orders against certain aliens convicted of CIMTs, that limitation
     applies where removal is for multiple CIMTs under § 1227 or a single CIMT under § 1182, but
     not where removal is for a single CIMT under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)
     (“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is
     removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) or
     1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title, or any offense covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)
     of this title for which both predicate offenses are, without regard to their date of commission,
     otherwise covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title.”).
                                                       2
 1   aff’g No. A097 524 268 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 2, 2018). We assume the parties’

 2   familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

 3         In his application, Mansurov alleged that, because of his Tajik ethnicity, the

 4   Uzbek government forced him to “hand over” his business, killed his brother for

 5   resisting that demand, and subsequently interrogated and beat him during a one-

 6   night detention. Certified Admin. Record at 341. The agency determined that

 7   Mansurov was not credible and denied his application. In his petition, Mansurov

 8   does not challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination; he instead

 9   requests remand for the agency to consider whether there is a “pattern or practice”

10   of persecution of Tajiks in Uzbekistan.

11         We decline to remand on the pattern-or-practice claim because Mansurov

12   did not raise such a claim before the agency.      See Ud Din v. Garland, 72 F.4th

13   411, 419–20 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2023) (explaining that issue exhaustion is a mandatory

14   claim-processing rule “that a court must enforce . . . if a party properly raises it”

15   (internal quotation marks omitted)).       An applicant can show eligibility for

16   withholding of removal by establishing that he likely will be “singled out

17   individually” for persecution or that there is a “pattern or practice” of persecution

18   of similarly situated people. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). Mansurov argues that the

                                               3
 1   BIA failed to consider his “pattern or practice” claim, which is independent of his

 2   credibility. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). But Mansurov

 3   did not argue such a claim before the IJ, and despite the IJ’s decision stating that

 4   no such claim was raised, Mansurov still did not assert a pattern or practice claim

 5   on appeal to the BIA or cite country conditions evidence to establish such a claim.

 6   Given Mansurov’s failure to adequately raise this claim below, we cannot consider

 7   it here. See Ud Din, 72 F.4th at 419–20.

 8          Nor did Mansurov preserve a challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility

 9   determination, which he failed to raise in his briefing to us. See Debique v. Garland,

10   58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (“We consider abandoned any claims not

11   adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure to make

12   legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” (internal quotation marks

13   omitted)).   The adverse credibility determination is therefore dispositive of

14   Mansurov’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Hong Fei Gao

15   v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Where the same factual predicate

16   underlies a petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

17   under the CAT, an adverse credibility determination forecloses all three forms of

18   relief.”).

                                                4
1        For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

2   motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

3                                      FOR THE COURT:
4                                      Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
5                                      Clerk of Court

                                         5