13-92
Wu v. Holder
BIA
Hom, I.J.
A077 977 413
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 14th day of May, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 RALPH K. WINTER,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 WEN LONG WU, AKA HSUHSIANG TENG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 13-92
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Zhong Yue Zhang, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; James A. Hunolt, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Jesse Lloyd
29 Busen, Trial Attorney, Civil
1 Division, Office of Immigration
2 Litigation, United States Department
3 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
6 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
7 review is DENIED.
8 Wen Long Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s
9 Republic of China, seeks review of a December 31, 2012,
10 order of the BIA affirming the September 13, 2011, decision
11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for
12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Wen Long Wu,
14 No. A077 977 413 (B.I.A. Dec. 31, 2012), aff’g No. A077 977
15 413 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 13, 2011). We assume the
16 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
17 procedural history of this case.
18 Under the circumstances of the case, we have reviewed
19 the IJ’s decision. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141,
20 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are
21 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
22 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
23
2
1 Because Wu does not challenge the agency’s finding that
2 he did not establish past persecution, Wu is required to
3 show that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
4 Wu has not identified any error in the IJ’s decision.
5 First, Wu submitted a letter from his father stating
6 that authorities in China continue to search for him, but
7 the letter, prepared for purposes of the proceedings, lacks
8 any detail about the search. The IJ thus did not err in
9 affording the letter little weight. See Xiao Ji Chen v.
10 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006);
11 Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 & n.5
12 (BIA 2010), overruled in part on other grounds by Hui Lin
13 Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). Despite Wu’s
14 argument that the agency erred in rejecting the letter as
15 unauthenticated pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6, the IJ did not
16 reject the document as unauthenticated, but rather gave it
17 little weight as unsworn and lacking in detail.
18 Moreover, the IJ reasonably gave Wu’s testimony
19 regarding phone conversations with his father little weight,
20 as the testimony lacked detail and was unsupported by any
21 corroborating evidence. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279,
22 285 (2d Cir. 2000) (“While consistent, detailed, and
3
1 credible testimony may be sufficient to carry the alien’s
2 burden, evidence corroborating his story, or an explanation
3 for its absence, may be required where it would reasonably
4 be expected.”). Wu also cites to human rights reports to
5 say that country conditions support his claim that he will
6 be sterilized. We do not consider this evidence, as it was
7 not submitted to the agency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
8 Because Wu did not meet his burden for asylum, he
9 necessarily cannot meet the higher burden required for
10 withholding of removal and CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R.
11 § 1208.16(b), (c); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d
12 Cir. 2010.
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
4