JIN RONG WU, aka Jing Wong Wu, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 530 F. App'x 89

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Jin Rong Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 12, 2012, order of the BIA affirming the October 26, 2009, decision an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied Wu’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Rong Wu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 12, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. New York City Oct. 26, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513-14 (2d Cir.2009). Wu challenges the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, arguing his eligibility for that relief based on his wife’s involuntary sterilization, his “other resistance” to China’s family planning policies, and his fear of sterilization as punishment for his political dissidence.

Initially, because we previously concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and the BIA’s determinations that Wu’s testimony about his wife’s sterilization and his personal resistance to China’s family planning policies was not credible, Jin Rong Wu v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 203 Fed.Appx. 353, 354-55 (2d Cir.2006) (summary order), we decline to revisit those issues here. Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478, 490 (2d Cir.2008).

Moreover, the agency reasonably concluded that Wu’s fear of sterilization as punishment for political dissidence was not objectively reasonable because he pointed to no record evidence demonstrating persecution of similarly situated individuals, and his evidence — consisting of his hearsay testimony and letters from interested witnesses — was reasonably afforded limited evidentiary weight. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 160-61 (2d Cir.2008); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006); Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir.2005).

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).