17-1009 Wang v. Whitaker BIA Loprest, IJ A094 922 413 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 11th day of December, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HAI YING WANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1009 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jay Ho Lee, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General; 27 Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant 28 Director; Jeffrey R. Meyer, 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 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 Hai Ying Wang, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 16, 7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a December 7, 2015, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hai 11 Ying Wang, No. A094 922 413 (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 2017), aff’g 12 No. A094 922 413 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 7, 2015). 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 14 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and consider only 15 the adverse credibility determination. See Xue Hong Yang v. 16 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 17 The applicable standards of review are well established. 18 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 19 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The following facts and 20 procedural history are relevant to our review of the 21 agency’s adverse credibility determination. 22 Wang entered the United States in 2006 and initially 23 applied for asylum based on her fear of forced 2 1 sterilization under China’s family planning policy. Wang 2 testified before an IJ in Arizona in March 2010, and in 3 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals