17-1291 Liu v. Whitaker BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A205 444 671 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 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 WEN JIN LIU, 15 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 17-1291 19 NAC 20 21 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 22 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONER: Wen Jin Liu, pro se, New York, 28 NY. 29 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 3 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse 4 Lloyd Busen, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Wen Jin Liu, a native and citizen of the 14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 29, 2017, 15 decision of the BIA affirming a March 10, 2016, decision of 16 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liu’s application for 17 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wen Jin Liu, No. 19 A205 444 671 (B.I.A. Mar. 29, 2017), aff’g No. A205 444 671 20 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City March 10, 2016). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 22 in this case. 23 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 24 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 25 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 26 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 2 1 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 2 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 5 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 6 or witness’s written and oral statements . . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals