10-1255-ag
Xu v. Holder
BIA
DeFonzo, IJ
A094 048 617
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 7th day of December, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
MING ZHANG XU,
Petitioner,
v. 10-1255-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Ke-en Wang, Law Offices of Siegel Wang
& Associates, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
Russell J. Verby, Senior Litigation
Counsel; Nancy K. Canter, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
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 DENIED.
Petitioner Ming Zhang Xu, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 4, 2010,
decision of the BIA affirming the April 16, 2008, decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo, denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming
Zhang Xu, No. A094 048 617 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2010), aff’g No.
A094 048 617 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2008). We assume
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the
IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.”
See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The
applicable standards of review are well-established. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110
(2d Cir. 2008).
By failing to raise any argument in his brief, Xu waives
any challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
-2-
(2d Cir. 2005). The IJ’s adverse credibility determination
alone was dispositive of Xu’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Ramsameachire v.
Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that to
establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution, an
applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears
persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable);
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding
that when the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims
are based on the same factual predicate, a credibility ruling
necessarily forecloses relief in each); see also Steevenez v.
Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2007) (denying a petition
for review because petitioner failed to challenge a
dispositive ground for relief).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. 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
is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
-3-