Page 143
Eric H. HOLDER, Jr.,[1] Attorney General of the United States, and Department of Justice, Respondents.
No. 07-3197-ag.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 2, 2010.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is
Page 144
DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, NY, for petitioner.
Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda Wernery, Assistant Director, Sarah Maloney, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
PRESENT: WALKER, B.D. PARKER and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Sai Ying Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the June 29, 2007 order of the BIA: (1) affirming the October 3, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace pretermitting her application for asylum and denying her application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”); and (2) denying her motion to remand. In Sai Ying Chen, No. A098 775 949 (B.I.A. June 29, 2007), aff’g No. A098 775 949 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision insofar as it pretermitted as untimely Chen’s application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). While we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and “questions of law,” id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Chen has made no such argument. Rather, Chen challenges the probative weight the IJ assigned to evidence she submitted, a matter largely within the IJ’s discretion. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). The balance of Chen’s arguments misinterpret both the regulations and the agency’s decision. We lack jurisdiction to review such frivolous arguments even when they purport to be “questions of law.” See Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40, 41 n. 6 (2d Cir. 2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). We therefore dismiss these aspects the petition for review.
In addition, Chen waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of her application for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Although her brief reiterates the standards for each, that does not constitute a meaningful challenge. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005).
Lastly, we review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of Chen’s motion to remand. Li Yong Cao v. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 151 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Contrary to Chen’s arguments, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to remand her case based on the U.S. Department of State’s 2005 Country Report on Human Rights Practices (“2005 Country Report”) and our decision in Shou Yung Guo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2006). Chen’s brief quotes portions of these two sources, but does not explain how they impact her eligibility for relief. Further, as the BIA noted, the 2005 Country Report does “not reflect that it is more likely than not [that she] would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.” See Matter of J-H-S-, 24 I. N. Dec. 196, 200 (BIA 2007); Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007). Finally, Chen fails to acknowledge that both the agency and this Court have since considered the documents addressed in Shou Yung Guo v. Gonzales and found that they do not demonstrate an alien’s prima facie eligibility for relief. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d at 138; Matter of J-H-S-, 24 I. N.
Page 145
Dec. at 200; Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. N. Dec. at 185.[2]
Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to remand. See Cao, 421 F.3d at 151 Kaur, 413 F.3d at 233.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review isDENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 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 isDISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).
Page 761