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,

on the 14th 4 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