16-4185 Shi v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 277 778 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 August, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 YAN LIN SHI, 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 16-4185 15 NAC 16 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 17 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 18 Respondent. 19 _____________________________________ 20 21 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, New York, NY. 22 23 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler Acting Assistant 24 Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, 25 Senior Litigation Counsel; Gregory 26 A. Pennington, Jr., Trial 27 Attorney, Office of Immigration 28 Litigation, United States 29 Department of Justice, Washington, 30 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Yan Lin Shi, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 29, 7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an October 8, 2015, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Shi’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yan 11 Lin Shi, No. A 205 277 778 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2016), aff’g No. 12 A 205 277 778 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 8, 2015). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 14 and procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and consider only 17 the bases that the IJ relied on for the credibility 18 determination. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards 20 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 2 1 66 (2d Cir. 2008). In making a credibility determination, 2 the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 3 circumstances” and may base its determination on the 4 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness, . . . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals