Dolma v. Lynch, 662 F. App'x 43

Petitioner Tshering Dolma, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the BIA’s October 11, 2011 decision affirming an IJ’s August 19, 2010 denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Before the IJ Dolma conceded she provided material support to a terrorist organization, which the agency treated as rendering her ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.
Dolma did not press her asylum and withholding claims before the BIA on appeal (aside from a one-sentence reference), so those grounds were unexhausted administratively.
Dolma sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing a fear of torture by Maoists in Nepal (not harm as a Tibetan in China).
The IJ and BIA denied CAT relief, finding her evidence speculative and not showing likely torture by officials or that authorities would be aware of her activities.
The Second Circuit dismissed the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction (unexhausted claims) and denied the CAT claim on the merits; any stay of removal was vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over asylum and withholding claims (exhaustion)	Dolma sought review of denial of asylum and withholding despite conceding material support; implicitly argued Court could review.	Government: Dolma failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the BIA; jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. §1252(d)(1).	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: her asylum and withholding challenges were unexhausted and thus not reviewable.
Eligibility for CAT deferral	Dolma argued she faces more likely-than-not torture by Maoists in Nepal if removed.	Government: Evidence is speculative, not tied to persecution by public officials or authorities’ awareness/acquiescence.	Denied: agency reasonably concluded CAT standard not met; claim speculative and record didn’t show likelihood of torture or official involvement/acquiescence.

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration decisions)
Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2006) (administrative exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional)
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (court defers to agency factfinding and does not resolve record conflicts)
Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (to establish fear of harm without past persecution, alien must show authorities are or will likely become aware of activities)
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (deference to agency evaluation of documentary evidence)