
    PEI WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-1869.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 17, 2015.
    Peter Lobel, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Matthew M. Downer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Pei Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 8, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming a March 22, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief .under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Pei Wang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 8, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 22, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006). 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 (2d Cir.2009).

Wang’s sole contention is that the agency erred in affording diminished weight to a letter from his friend in China, which describes the friend’s arrest for attending an underground church and subsequent beating. The IJ gave limited weight to this letter because it was unsworn, unauthenticated, and from an individual unavailable for cross-examination. These were valid grounds for according diminished weight to the letter. In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214-15 (BIA 2010), rev’d on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.2012). As this letter was the only evidence Wang submitted to show he would be singled out for persecution if returned to China, the agency reasonably found that Wang failed to meet his burden of proof. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008) (“Put simply, to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some showing that authorities in his country of nationality are either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities.”)*

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).  