Ramesh Kumar DHANDAY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Department of Homeland Security, Respondents, 370 F. App'x 178

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Dhanday, seeks review of the June 23, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming the October 1, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Jeffrey L. Romig, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ramesh Kumar Dhanday, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 23, 2009), afflg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 1, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4); Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well established. See Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). An asylum applicant’s nationality, or lack of nationality, is a threshold question in determining his or her eligibility for asylum. See Jigme Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006).

The alien has the burden to establish his eligibility for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). Here, the IJ identified nationality as an important issue in the case, but found that the two letters Dhanday submitted were insufficient to prove his Indian nationality. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that the weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the IJ).

Moreover, the IJ told Dhanday that he should provide more official documents to establish his nationality and gave him ample time to provide such evidence. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that corroborating evidence, or an explanation for its absence, may be required where it would reasonably be expected). Despite being given this opportunity, Dhanday failed to provide additional evidence by the deadline the IJ had set. Thus, the IJ’s determination that Dhanday failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief is supported by substantial evidence.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (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).