17-940 Chen v. Whitaker BIA Loprest, IJ A200 150 703 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 28th day of November, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JUN CHEN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-940 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Lyle D. Jentzer, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Erik R. 28 Quick, 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Jun Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 9, 2017, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a July 29, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jun Chen, No. A 11 200 150 703 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 200 150 703 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 29, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 17 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 18 Although Chen dedicates the bulk of his brief to challenging 19 the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, that 20 determination is not a basis for the agency’s decision because 21 the BIA did not reach or rely on it. Id. Although Chen 22 provides little in the way or argument on the actual bases of 2 1 the agency’s decision—the lack of nexus to a protected ground 2 and the lack of harm rising to the level of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals