20

- 3258 Wu v. Garland BIA Wright , IJ A 205 625 717 

### 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**  **ELE CTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **” ). A PARTY CITING TO 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** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 23**  **rd da**  **y of February,**  **two thousand twenty** 

**** 4 **two**

**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO,** 10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **SHICHAI WU ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16

**v. 20** 

**- 3258**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Keith S. Barnett , Esq. , New York , 24
N Y

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro , Assistant Director ; 292 Jenny C. Lee , Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation , 2 United States Depar tment of 3 Justice, Washington, D C. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED. 9

Petitioner Shichai Wu , a native and citizen of the 10

People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a n August 31 , 11

2020 decision of the BIA , which affirm ed a September 27 , 2018 12

decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and 13

withholding of removal. In re Shichai Wu , No. A 205 625 717 14

(B.I.A. Aug. 31 , 2020 ), aff’g No. A 205 625 717 (Immig r . Ct. 15

N.Y. C. Sept. 27 , 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity 16

with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17

We have review ed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 18

BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just

. , 426 F.3d 520, 19

522 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well 20

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hongsheng Leng 21

v. Mukasey , 528 F.3d 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2008 ). 22

Because the BIA did not reach the IJ’s adverse 23

credibility determination, that finding is not before us. 24

See Xue Hong Yang , 426 F.3d at 522 ; see also Lin Zhong v. 253 U.S. Dep’t of Just

. , 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[W]e 1

may consider only those issues that formed the basis for [the 2

BIA’s] decision.”). Wu does not challenge the agency’s 3

determination that , assuming credibility, he failed to 4

establish a well

- founded fear of persecut ion on account of 5

his religion. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 6

541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (stating that petitioner 7

abandons issues and claims not raised in his brief). That 8

finding was dispositive of asylum and withholding of removal 9

a nd thus Wu’s failure to challenge it is fatal to his petition 10

and we need not reach the agency’s alternative finding that 11

his asylum application was untimely. See id. ; see also Lecaj 12

v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 119

– 20 (2d Cir. 2010) (failure to 13

show fear of persecution required for asylum “necessarily” 14

precludes meeting higher burden for withholding of removal ); 15

INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule 16

courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 17

issues the decision of which i s unnecessary to the results 18

they reach.”)

. 194 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED . All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

stays VACATED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6