MING ZHANG XU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent, 402 F. App'x 632

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Ming Zhang Xu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 4, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the April 16, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Zhang Xu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). By failing to raise any argument in his brief, Xu waives any challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination alone was dispositive of Xu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004) (holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution, an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable); Paul v.

Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that when the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims are based on the same factual predicate, a credibility ruling necessarily forecloses relief in each); see also Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir.2007) (denying a petition for review because petitioner failed to challenge a dispositive ground for relief). 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).