16-3403 Tian v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A200 929 153 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 3rd day of October, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHUHUI TIAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3403 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Los Angeles, CA. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, 29 Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Shuhui Tian, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 21, 7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an October 17, 2014, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Tian’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shuhui 11 Tian, No. A200 929 153 (B.I.A. Sept. 21, 2016), aff’g No. 12 A200 929 153 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 17, 2014). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 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 review only 17 the ground for decision on which the BIA relied—Tian’s 18 failure to meet his burden of proof. See Xue Hong Yang v. 19 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 20 The applicable standards of review are well established. 21 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 22 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). For the reasons that follow, 23 we conclude that the agency did not err in determining that 2 1 Tian failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well- 2 founded fear of future ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals