10-1255-ag

Xu v. Holder

BIA

DeFonzo, IJ

A094 048 617

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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New

York, on the 7th day of December, two thousand ten.

PRESENT:

JON O. NEWMAN,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

 Circuit Judges.

_______________________________________

MING ZHANG XU,

Petitioner,

v. 10-1255-ag

NAC

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Respondent.

_______________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Ke-en Wang, Law Offices of Siegel Wang

& Associates, New York, New York.

FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;

Russell J. Verby, Senior Litigation

Counsel; Nancy K. Canter, Trial

Attorney, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, United

States Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C.
-2-

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for

review is DENIED.

Petitioner Ming Zhang Xu, a native and citizen of the

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 4, 2010,

decision of the BIA affirming the April 16, 2008, decision of

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo, denying his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming

Zhang Xu, No. A094 048 617 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2010), aff’g No.

A094 048 617 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2008). We assume

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

procedural history of the case.

 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the

IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.”

See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The

applicable standards of review are well-established. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110

(2d Cir. 2008). 

By failing to raise any argument in his brief, Xu waives

any challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
-3-

(2d Cir. 2005). The IJ’s adverse credibility determination

alone was dispositive of Xu’s application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Ramsameachire v.

Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that to

establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution, an

applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears

persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable);

Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding

that when the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims

are based on the same factual predicate, a credibility ruling

necessarily forecloses relief in each); see also Steevenez v.

Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2007) (denying a petition

for review because petitioner failed to challenge a

dispositive ground for relief).

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).

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk