Case ID: f-appx_537/html/0008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ZAI CHENG ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-3142.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
    Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, GUIDO CALABRESI and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Zai Cheng Zhu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a July 20, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming a January 18, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Randa Zagzoug, denying Zhu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zai Cheng Zhu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 20, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 20, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. See Ming Xia Chen v. BIA 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

Because, in his brief, Zhu explicitly abandons any challenge to the denial of asylum and CAT relief, the only issue before the Court is the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. Zhu argues that he is entitled to withholding of removal based on his “other resistance” to China’s family planning policy. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309 (2d Cir.2007). However, because the Government correctly asserts that Zhu failed to exhaust this argument before the BIA, we will not consider it. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 118-20 (2d Cir.2007). Notably, Zhu does not address his failure to exhaust this issue or suggest any reason that the Court should review his arguments, despite having not raised them before the BIA.

Zhu’s other asserted grounds for withholding of removal — his opposition to corruption in China and his political activities in the United States — were raised in his appeal to the BIA. The Government correctly argues, however, that, before the BIA, Zhu contended only that he had met his burden of proof, but did not challenge the IJ’s findings that his testimony was not credible and that he had failed to provide corroborating evidence. Therefore, we will not consider Zhu’s challenges to these findings. See id.

As the determinations that Zhu was not credible and had failed to provide corroborating evidence were dispositive of his claim for withholding of removal, see Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 195 n. 5 (2009) (noting that “a failure to corroborate can suffice, without more, to support a finding that an alien has not met his burden of proof’); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006) (finding that “where a withholding claim is based on the very fact, or set of facts, that the IJ found not to be credible ... an adverse credibility ruling will ... preclude the withholding claim”), and we “must decline to consider” these unexhausted issues, Lin Zhong, 480 F.3d at 107 n. 1, the petition for review is denied. See Balachova v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 374, 380 (2d Cir.2008) (granting Government’s motion to dismiss petition for review where the petitioner did not exhaust challenge to adverse credibility determination that was dispositive of all claims).

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).