Dong v. Garland


19-2331 Dong v. Garland BIA Laforest, IJ A206 295 117 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 14th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 WENGE DONG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-2331 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, Esq., New 25 York, NY. 26 1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Civil Division, 3 Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation 4 Counsel; Judith R. O’Sullivan, 5 Trial Attorney, Office of 6 Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Wenge Dong, a native and citizen of the 15 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 21, 2019 16 decision of the BIA affirming a February 1, 2018 decision of 17 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Dong’s application for 18 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 19 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wenge Dong, No. 20 A206 295 117 (B.I.A. June 21, 2019), aff’g No. A206 295 117 21 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 1, 2018). We assume the parties’ 22 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 23 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 24 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 25 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 26 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 27 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 1 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 3 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 4 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 5 the applicant or witness, the …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals