19-2135 Zhou v. Garland BIA Bain, IJ A205 874 315 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 21st day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 MICHAEL H. PARK, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LONG ZHOU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-2135 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Esq., Belle Mead, 25 NJ. 26 27 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant 3 Director; Andrew Oliveira, Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration 5 Litigation, United States 6 Department of Justice, Washington, 7 DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Long Zhou, a native and citizen of China, 13 seeks review of a June 18, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming 14 an October 2, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 15 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 16 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Long Zhou, No. 17 A 205 874 315 (B.I.A. June 18, 2019), aff’g No. A 205 874 315 18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 2, 2017). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 21 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 22 Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 23 record supports the agency’s finding that Zhou’s testimony, 24 in the absence of corroboration, was insufficient to satisfy 25 his burden of proof. 2 1 The applicant has the burden of proof to establish 2 eligibility for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 3 The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to 4 sustain the applicant’s burden without 5 corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies 6 the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is 7 credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific 8 facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant 9 is a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals