SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jiang Nai Jin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a May 11, 2011 decision of the BIA affirming the May 20, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna M. Bukszpan denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jiang Nai Jin, No. A094 803 237 (B.I.A. May 11, 2011), aff'g No. A094 803 237 (Im-mig.Ct.N.Y.C. May 20, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See 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 (2d Cir. 2009).

Jin does not challenge the agency’s findings that he did not establish past persecution, illegal departure from China, or a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of smugglers. His only argument is that the agency erred in concluding that he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on his status as an individual repatriated to China after illegal entry into the United States. We are not persuaded.

Jin argues that evidence of country conditions established that returnees from the United States are subjected to persecution and torture upon return to China. The agency considered the evidence submitted by Jin — evidence including a 2007 State Department Profile on Asylum Claims— and concluded that it indicated that retur *132 nees from the United States are, at most, subjected to brief detentions. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 157-60 (2d Cir. 2005); Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128 (2d Cir. 2005).

The IJ did not, as Jin claims, err in declining to afford significant weight to purported expert Professor Dean G. Ro-jek’s declaration that returnees from the United States are arrested, detained, and abused. Professor Rojek’s declaration was unsigned and prepared for another case, and Professor Rojek was not made available for cross-examination. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that weight afforded to applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within IJ’s discretion). Jin did not submit any particularized evidence indicating that he would be persecuted or tortured upon his return to China. Accordingly, the agency properly denied Jin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178, 185 (2d Cir. 2004).

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).