Case Name: XU JIE DONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-01
Citations: 367 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 09-2871-ag
Parties: XU JIE DONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
XU JIE DONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-2871-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 1, 2010.
Sheema Chaudhry, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel; Briena L. Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Xu Jie Dong, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a June 19, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the October 19, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Helen J. Sichel, which denied Dong's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Xu Jie Dong, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA June 19, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 19, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ's decision including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. Yurt-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir.2008).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The IJ reasonably relied on petitioner's omission from his asylum application of any claim that he was detained and beaten on account of his resistance to China's family planning policy. Although petitioner argues that he failed to include this informa tion in his application because he thought it was unnecessary, that argument does not compel us to find error in the IJ's decision. Id. Indeed, the IJ reasonably surmised that petitioner had augmented his earlier claim to fit the change in law after our decision in Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Department of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007), particularly because both his initial asylum application and his wife's affidavit contained significant amounts of detail about other aspects of his claim. See Cheng Tong Wang v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 451, 453 (2d Cir.2006) (finding that the applicant's omission of his wife's forced sterilization was material to the applicant's claim irrespective of the fact that it occurred at a time when that sterilization would not have been, on its own, sufficient to establish asylum eligibility, because the basis for the applicant's original asylum claim was his opposition to China's family planning policy). Accordingly, the IJ's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1252(b)(4)(B).
Because petitioner's claims were all based on the same factual predicate, the agency's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was proper. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,156 (2d Cir.2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have 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 DISMISSED 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 34.1(b).