Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0037-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FU LIN WU, aka Fun Lin Wu, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2014.
    Zhou Wang, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; David V. Bernal, Assistant Director; Lindsay W. Zimliki, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Fu Lin Wu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 31, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the August 4, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Steven Abrams, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Fu Lin Wu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 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).

Wu applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on his claim that he fears persecution in his home province of Heilongjiang because he has had more than one child in violation of China’s population control program. For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.2008), we find no error in the agency’s determination that Wu failed to demonstrate his eligibility for relief. See id. at 158-72.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, 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).