16-3144 Xiao v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A205 589 688 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 13th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 QIAN WU XIAO, AKA XIAO QIAN WU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-3144 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Stephen J. 28 Flynn, Assistant Director; Jeffrey 29 R. Meyer, Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is GRANTED. 9 Petitioner Qian Wu Xiao, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 18, 11 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an April 7, 2015, decision 12 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Xiao’s application for 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qian Wu Xiao, No. 15 A 205 589 688 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 20(16), aff’g No. A 205 589 688 16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 7, 2015). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 18 in this case. Briefly, the claim of persecution is based on 19 the alleged conduct of the police, including beating Xiao 20 while in detention for her participation in an underground 21 church in China. 22 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 23 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 2 1 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 2 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review an adverse credibility 3 determination for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 5 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 6 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals