22-6104

Wu v. Garland

BIA

Navarro, IJ

A088 791 986

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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 

Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of January, two thousand 

twenty-four. 

PRESENT: 

WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

STEVEN J. MENASHI,

ALISON J. NATHAN,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

DONG XIAN WU, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 22-6104 

 NAC 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Meer M. M. Rahman, Esq., New York, NY. 
2

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant

Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, 

Assistant Director; Rachel Browning, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner Dong Xian Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 

China, seeks review of a February 4, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming a July 9, 

2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”). In re Dong Xian Wu, No. A 088 791 986 (B.I.A. Feb. 4, 2022), aff’g No. A

088 791 986 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Wu does not present factual or legal challenges to the agency’s adverse 

credibility determination, instead erroneously stating that the agency found him 

credible. See Petitioner’s Brief at 5–6. Accordingly, he has abandoned any 

challenge to the adverse credibility determination. “We consider abandoned any 

claims not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure 
3 

to make legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” Debique v. Garland, 

58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted); see also Yueqing Zhang 

v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 

114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998), which holds that “[i]ssues not sufficiently argued in the 

briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal”). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition because the adverse credibility determination 

was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Hong Fei 

Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Where the same factual predicate 

underlies a petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the CAT, an adverse credibility determination forecloses all three forms of 

relief.”). 

For the foregoing reason, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending 

motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

Clerk of Court