Case Name: MEI RU JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-30
Citations: 225 F. App'x 31
Docket Number: No. 06-2762-ag
Parties: MEI RU JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
MEI RU JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
No. 06-2762-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 30, 2007.
Mei Ru Jiang, pro se, for Petitioner.
Michelle E. Gordon Latour, Assistant Director (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Koshei Ugumori, Law Clerk, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, josé a. cabranes, Circuit Judges., and RICHARD W. GOLDBERG , Judge.
The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Mei Ru Jiang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a May 12, 2006 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming a February 11, 2005 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Roxanne Hladylowycz denying petitioner's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. In re Mei Ru Jiang, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 12, 2006), aff'g No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 11, 2005) . We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and the procedural history of the case.
Upon a review of the record, we conclude that petitioner's arguments are without merit. Although the IJ did not expressly mention the alleged beating of petitioner (which was mentioned only in petitioner's asylum application), the evidence and testimony in the record do not, when taken as a whole, "strongly suggest, much less compel, a contrary conclusion" to that reached by the IJ. Liang Chen v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 454 F.3d 103, 106 (2d Cir. 2006) . The IJ also properly considered petitioner's failure to corroborate her claims with supporting evidence. See, e.g., Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285-86 (2d Cir .2000).
We have considered all of petitioner's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.