Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0097-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XING AN DONG, aka Xing En Dong, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-3812.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 23, 2012.
    Jan Allen Reiner, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director; R. Alexander Goring, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RICHARD C. WESLEY and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Xing An Dong, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an August 25, 2011, reissued decision of the BIA, affirming an Immigration Judge’s March 3,1999 denial of asylum and withholding of removal. In re Xing An Dong, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 3, 1999). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2008). 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).

Even assuming that Dong was credible, the agency did not err in finding that he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in China. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir.2005). As the agency reasonably noted, Dong failed to show that any of his neighbors suffered harm for their role in the January 1998 altercation with family planning officers. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.1999). Indeed, Dong failed to offer any evidence showing that authorities sought him following the issuance of his summons in April 1998 or had any continued interest in him.

Moreover, the agency did not err in according diminished weight to Dong’s summons because it was not authenticated by any means. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir.2006). The agency also reasonably concluded that Dong’s summons, which merely directed him to report to the local precinct for questioning, was entitled to minimal weight because it did not indicate the purpose of the questioning. See Jian Xing Huang, 421 F.3d at 128-29; Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 329. Under these circumstances, the agency did not err in concluding that Dong failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.

As Dong failed to meet his burden for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher burden required to succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. See Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir.1991). Although Dong also argues that he established his eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), Dong filed his application prior to the effective date of CAT’s implementing legislation and did not subsequently assert a claim for CAT relief before the agency.

Because the agency did not err in finding that Dong failed to establish his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, we decline to consider his challenges to the agency’s alternative basis for denial — that he was not credible. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976) (per curiam). Even assuming error in the agency’s adverse credibility determination, given the agency’s reasonable alternative burden finding, remand of these proceedings would be futile. See Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 401 (2d Cir.2005).

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).