16-3108 Xiu v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 364 234 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 9th day of February, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZHANG MEI XIU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3108 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Edward E. Wiggers, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Michael 28 C. Heyse, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Zhang Mei Xiu, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 8, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an August 6, 2015, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Xiu’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhang Mei Xiu, No. A 206 364 234 11 (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 2016), aff’g No. A 206 364 234 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 12 City Aug. 6, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 15 the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” 16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 21 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on asylum 2 1 applicant’s “demeanor, candor or responsiveness,” the inherent 2 plausibility of her account, and any inconsistencies and 3 omissions in her testimony, application, and documentary 4 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals