20-1581 Juan v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A206 445 905 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 21st day of June, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: MICHAEL H. PARK, ALISON J. NATHAN, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LIN CHAN JUAN, AKA CHUN JUAN LIN, Petitioner, v. 20-1581 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Meer M. M. Rahman, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Joseph A. O’Connell, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Lin Chan Juan, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 23, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a July 16, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin Chan Juan, No. A206 445 905 (B.I.A. Apr. 23, 2020), aff’g No. A206 445 905 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 16, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the grounds for the denial of relief that the BIA did not rely on. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The Petitioner’s challenge to the adverse credibility determination is cursory and does not establish error in the 2 agency’s decision. She does not acknowledge or contest the inconsistencies relied on by the agency, but summarily asserts that her testimony should have been found credible. Accordingly, we defer to the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that petitioner could only disprove his previous inconsistencies by “demonstrat[ing] that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony” (cleaned up)). Moreover, our review of the record and the agency’s decisions reveals substantial evidence for that determination given inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s statements regarding whether the police physically assaulted her …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals