19-3928 Ou v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A205 899 030 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 11th day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 XIA OU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3928 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Justin 1 Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel; 2 Nancy Friedman, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Xia Ou, a native and citizen of the People’s 12 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 8, 2019 decision 13 of the BIA affirming a February 8, 2018 decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 15 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Xia Ou, No. A205 899 030 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 17 2019), aff’g No. A205 899 030 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 8, 18 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 Under the circumstances presented here, we review both 21 the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 22 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 23 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 24 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 2 1 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility 2 determination for substantial evidence). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 5 determination on . . . the consistency between the 6 applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the 7 internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals