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 SUMMA RY 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 14 th** **day of May, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 7 Chief Judge, 8 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 9 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 10 Circuit Judges**.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **WEN LONG WU, AKA HSUHSIANG TENG,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 13-92** 17 **NAC** 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Zhong Yue Zhang, New York, New York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; James A. Hunolt, Senior** 27 **Litigation Counsel; Jesse Lloyd** 28 **Busen, Trial Attorney, Civil** 29**Division, Office of Immigration** 1 **Litigation, United States Department** 2 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 5 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 6 review is DENIED. 7 Wen Long Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s 8 Republic of China, seeks review of a December 31, 2012, 9 order of the BIA affirming the September 13, 2011, decision 10 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 11 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 12 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Wen Long Wu , 13 No. A077 977 413 (B.I.A. Dec. 31, 2012), aff’g No. A077 977 14 413 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 13, 2011). We assume the 15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history of this case. 17 Under the circumstances of the case, we have reviewed 18 the IJ’s decision. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 19 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are 20 well-established. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also 21 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 22

23

2Because Wu does not challenge the agency’s finding that 1 he did not establish past persecution, Wu is required to 2 show that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. 3 Wu has not identified any error in the IJ’s decision. 4 First, Wu submitted a letter from his father stating 5 that authorities in China continue to search for him, but 6 the letter, prepared for purposes of the proceedings, lacks 7 any detail about the search. The IJ thus did not err in 8 affording the letter little weight. See Xiao Ji Chen v. 9 U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006); 10 Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 & n.5 11 (BIA 2010), overruled in part on other grounds by Hui Lin 12 Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). Despite Wu’s 13 argument that the agency erred in rejecting the letter as 14 unauthenticated pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6, the IJ did not 15 reject the document as unauthenticated, but rather gave it 16 little weight as unsworn and lacking in detail. 17 Moreover, the IJ reasonably gave Wu’s testimony 18 regarding phone conversations with his father little weight, 19 as the testimony lacked detail and was unsupported by any 20 corroborating evidence. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 21 285 (2d Cir. 2000) (“While consistent, detailed, and 22

3credible testimony may be sufficient to carry the alien’s 1 burden, evidence corroborating his story, or an explanation 2 for its absence, may be required where it would reasonably 3 be expected.”). Wu also cites to human rights reports to 4 say that country conditions support his claim that he will 5 be sterilized. We do not consider this evidence, as it was 6 not submitted to the agency. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). 7 Because Wu did not meet his burden for asylum, he 8 necessarily cannot meet the higher burden required for 9 withholding of removal and CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. 10 § 1208.16(b), (c); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d 11 Cir. 2010. 12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 19 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 20
FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23

4