16-162 Jiang v. Whitaker BIA Sichel, IJ A095 369 552 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 18th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 DENNIS JACOBS, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 XIU MEI JIANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-162 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 28 Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Allison 06152016-10 1 Frayer, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Xiu Mei Jiang, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 23, 12 2015, BIA decision that affirmed the May 1, 2014, decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Xiu Mei Jiang, No. A095 369 552 (B.I.A. Dec. 16 23, 2015), aff’g No. A095 369 552 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17 1, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s 20 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 22 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 23 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 24 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 07102018-5 1 Jiang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and 2 CAT relief, asserting that she suffered past persecution when 3 family planning officials fired her from her village 4 brigade and threatened to punish her for helping a friend 5 evade a forced abortion in 2000 and that she fears 6 persecution on account of this resistance to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals