12-1890
Wu v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A097 384 721
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 24th day of July, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 JIN RONG WU, AKA JING WONG WU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-1890
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jin Rong Wu, pro se, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay,
27 Assistant Director; Kelly J. Walls,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Jin Rong Wu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 12,
7 2012, order of the BIA affirming the October 26, 2009,
8 decision an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied Wu’s
9 application for withholding of removal and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Rong Wu, No.
11 A097 384 721 (B.I.A. Apr. 12, 2012), aff’g No. A097 384 721
12 (Immig. Ct. New York City Oct. 26, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by
16 the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.
17 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
19 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513-14 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 Wu challenges the agency’s denial of asylum and
21 withholding of removal, arguing his eligibility for that
22 relief based on his wife’s involuntary sterilization, his
23 “other resistance” to China’s family planning policies, and
2
1 his fear of sterilization as punishment for his political
2 dissidence. Initially, because we previously concluded that
3 substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and the BIA’s
4 determinations that Wu’s testimony about his wife’s
5 sterilization and his personal resistance to China’s family
6 planning policies was not credible, Jin Rong Wu v. U.S.
7 Dep’t of Justice, 203 F. App’x 354, 354-55 (2d Cir. 2006)
8 (summary order), we decline to revisit those issues here.
9 Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478, 490 (2d Cir. 2008).
10 Moreover, the agency reasonably concluded that Wu’s
11 fear of sterilization as punishment for political dissidence
12 was not objectively reasonable because he pointed to no
13 record evidence demonstrating persecution of similarly
14 situated individuals, and his evidence – consisting of his
15 hearsay testimony and letters from interested witnesses –
16 was reasonably afforded limited evidentiary weight. See
17 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 160-61 (2d Cir.
18 2008); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315,
19 342 (2d Cir. 2006); Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125,
20 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005).
21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3
1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
6 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
4