No. 09-2048-ag.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 27, 2010.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Cai Weng, pro se, Bellmore, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division; Theo Nickerson,
Page 56
Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Cai Weng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 20, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the September 27, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Cai Weng, No. A094 923 040 (B.I.A. Apr. 20, 2009), aff’g No. A094 923 040 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 27, 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 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, All F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salirnatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
The IJ found that Weng was not credible. The BIA dismissed Weng’s appeal, affirming the IJ’s credibility determination. However, even construing his pro se arguments broadly Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2007), Weng does not mention, much less challenge, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Accordingly, Weng has waived any such argument. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the only evidence that Weng would be persecuted or tortured depended on his credibility, his failure to challenge that finding is dispositive of his petition for review. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. US. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, 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).