20-3683 Li Min Lin v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 894 760 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. 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 22nd day of March, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LI MIN LIN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3683 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Song Park, 1 Senior Litigation Counsel; Rosanne 2 M. Perry, Trial Attorney, Office 3 of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Li Min Lin, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 29, 12 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a June 20, 2018, decision 13 of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (CAT). In re Li Min Lin, No. A205 16 894 760 (B.I.A. Sept. 29, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 894 760 17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 20, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the case. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented and 20 modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 21 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[A]dministrative findings of fact are 24 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 1 compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse 3 credibility determination under substantial evidence 4 standard). 5 The IJ may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 6 circumstances, . . . base a credibility determination on . . . 7 the inherent plausibility of the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals