19-2003 Zou v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A201 295 445 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 9th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHUAN-QIU ZOU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2003 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Lombardi, Esq., Law 24 Office of James A. Lombardi, P.C., 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Anthony P. Nicastro, 1 Assistant Director; S. Nicole 2 Nardone, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Chuan-Qiu Zou, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 7, 2019, 12 decision of the BIA affirming a January 31, 2018, decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zou’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chuan-Qiu Zou, No. 16 A 201 295 445 (B.I.A. June 7, 2019), aff’g No. A 201 295 445 17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 20 BIA, so we review only the corroboration finding on which the 21 BIA relied. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 22 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 23 268, 271–72 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well 24 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. 2 1 Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018); Yanqin Weng v. 2 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Zou claimed that 3 because he and his parents are Christian, Chinese authorities 4 forced his family to move without full reimbursement, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals