No. 08-4240-ag.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 9, 2010.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.
Qiao Yan Zou, Brooklyn, N.Y., pro se.
Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel; Shahrzad Baghai, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,[**]
Qiao Yan Zou, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an August 8, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the August 22, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Hom, which denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiao Yang Zhou, No. A98 347 954 (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 2008) aff’g No. A98 347 954 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 22, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We need not reach the merits of the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Zou waived any challenge to that determination. In her brief to this Court, Zou states that she disagrees with the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions, but does not acknowledge that the agency rendered an adverse credibility determination, much less argue that such determination was in error. Although we liberally construe the papers filed b pro se litigants, see Marmolejo v. United States, 196 F.3d 377, 378 (2d Cir. 1999), we “need not manufacture claims of error for an appellant proceeding pro se,” LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93
(2d Cir. 1995); see also Fed.R.App.P. 28(a)(9)(A) (noting that an appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). Accordingly, any challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility determination is deemed waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005)
Because Zou waived any challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility determination, and because that finding was dispositive of each of her applications for relief, we deny the petition for review. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).[***]
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.