19-3420 Yiying Zhang v. Garland BIA Cassin, IJ A200 695 703 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 17th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YIYING ZHANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3420 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Gerard M. Alexander, Trial 26 Attorney, (Linda S. Wernery, 27 Assistant Director, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation, on the 1 brief), for Brian Boynton, Acting 2 Assistant Attorney General, Civil 3 Division United States Department 4 of Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Yiying Zhang, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 30, 11 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a February 15, 2018 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 13 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yiying Zhang, No. A 200 695 15 703 (B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2019), aff’g No. A 200 695 703 (Immig. 16 Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 15, 2018). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 19 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 20 Cir. 2005). We review the adverse credibility determination 21 for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong 22 Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 23 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 1 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 3 the applicant. . . , the consistency between the applicant’s 4 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal 5 consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals