19-4296 Shengqi v. Garland BIA Schoppert, IJ A 206 796 972 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 17th day of May, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 BETH ROBINSON, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LI SHENGQI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-4296 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, Esq., New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy 27 S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; 28 Kimberly A. Burdge, Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 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 Li Shengqi, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 19, 11 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a May 2, 2018 decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Shengqi, No. A 15 206 796 972 (B.I.A. Nov. 19, 2019), aff’g No. A 206 796 972 16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 2, 2018). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 19 decision as modified by the BIA and consider only the findings 20 that the BIA relied on. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 21 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review an 22 adverse credibility determination under a substantial 23 evidence standard, Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 2 1 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact are 2 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 3 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1252(b)(4)(B). 5 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 6 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 7 determination …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals