Case Name: Wei WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-06
Citations: 144 F. App'x 918
Docket Number: Docket No. 03-40917
Parties: Wei WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: Present: JACOBS, SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and BRIEANT, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 918–919

Head Matter:
Wei WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
Docket No. 03-40917.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 6, 2005.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Loretta F. Radford, Assistant United States Attorney (David E. O’Meilia, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, on the brief), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondent.
Present: JACOBS, SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and BRIEANT, District Judge.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The Honorable Charles L. Brieant, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") is DENIED.
Wei Wang ('Wang") petitions for review of a October 20, 2003 order of the BIA that affirmed a February 8, 2002 order of an Immigration Judge ("IJ"), denying petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case, its relevant procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
Wang argues that there was not substantial evidence to support the IJ's adverse credibility determination. We disagree. We have considered Wang's remaining arguments, and reject them. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.