SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ai You Jiang, 1 a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 4, 2011, order of the BIA, affirming the June 24, 2009, decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jiang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Aiyou Jiang, No. A098 714 586 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2011), aff'g No. A098 714 586 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 24, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). 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).

Jiang argues that he met his burden of proof for CAT relief by presenting evidence that individuals returned to China from the United States are detained and that torture is widespread in Chinese prisons. 2 The agency reasonably found that Jiang’s evidence was insufficient to meet his burden because Jiang relied on generalized evidence concerning the treatment of prisoners and submitted no particularized evidence whatsoever to indicate that individuals who are returned from the United States are tortured in detention. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2005). Indeed, like the documents submitted in Mu Xiang Lin and Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 144 n. 21 (2d Cir. 2003), the documents Jiang submitted “by no means establish that prisoners in [the petitioner’s] circumstances — namely, ... unlawful emigrants — are ‘more likely than not to be tortured.’ ” Mu-Xing Wang, 320 F.3d at 144 n. 21; see also Mu Xiang Lin, 432 F.3d at 160-1.

Furthermore, despite Jiang’s argument to the contrary, the testimony offered by Professor Rojek, who last visited China in 1994, failed to identify any specific incident of torture or any individual returnee who had been tortured. The BIA therefore reasonably declined to give that testimony prevailing weight. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006).

Finally, Jiang’s argument that the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Yi-Tu Lian v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2004) supercedes this Court’s holding in Mu Xiang Lin is unavailing as this Court is not bound by a holding of another circuit. Moreover, Jiang misunderstands Yi-Tu Lian. There, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case because the IJ failed completely to consider the evidence. The holding of Yi-Tu Lian, that a petitioner may establish his CAT claim using evidence pertaining to similarly situated individuals, is consistent with this Court’s holdings in Mu Xiang Lin and Mu-Xing Wang.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have com *50 pleted 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).