Case Name: WAN WEN LU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-23
Citations: 201 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 03-40275
Parties: WAN WEN LU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 201
Pages: 77–79

Head Matter:
WAN WEN LU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-40275.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 23, 2006.
Karen Jaffe, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Bud Cummins, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Dan Stripling, Assistant United States Attorney, Little Rock, Arkansas, for Respondent.
PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for for mer Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Wan Wen Lu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a July 16, 2003 order of the BIA summarily dismissing Lu's appeal of the January 14, 2002 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") William F. Jankun denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT") In re Wan Wen Lu, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (BIA September 29, 2005). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
Lu fails to address the reason for the BIA's summary dismissal in his brief to this Court. He has therefore waived any argument in this regard, see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n. 1, 546 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005), and we have no basis to disturb the BIA's decision. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having 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 DENIED 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(d)(1).