19-1687 Zhao v. Garland BIA Loprest, IJ A205 137 807 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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, MICHAEL H. PARK, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _______________________________ KAL ZHAO, AKA KAI ZHAO Petitioner, v. 19-1687 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _______________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Yevgeny Samokhleb, Law Offices of Yevgeny Samokhleb, P.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel; David Kim, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Kal Zhao (“Zhao”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 31, 2019, decision of the BIA, affirming a January 9, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that denied Zhao’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Kal Zhao, No. A205 137 807 (B.I.A. May 31, 2019), aff’g No. A205 137 807 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. “When the BIA agrees with an IJ’s adverse credibility determination and adopts particular parts of the IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Our review of the IJ’s decision includes the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA.” Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The scope of review under the substantial evidence standard is exceedingly narrow, and we will uphold the BIA’s decision unless the petitioner demonstrates that the record evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find him eligible for relief.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals