17-120 Sun v. Whitaker BIA Loprest, IJ A205 618 941 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 4th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON. O. NEWMAN, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MENG YUAN SUN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-120 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Meer M. M. Rahman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General; 27 Nancy E. Friedman, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Sharon M. 29 Clay, Trial 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 DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 9 Petitioner Meng Yuan Sun, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a BIA decision 11 affirming the denial of Sun’s application for asylum, 12 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Meng Yuan Sun, No. A205 618 14 941 (B.I.A. Dec. 19, 2016), aff’g No. A205 618 941 (Immig. 15 Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 11, 2016). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 the decisions of both the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the 20 BIA “for the sake of completeness,” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 21 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006), applying 22 well established standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 23 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 24 Cir. 2009). 2 1 I. Timeliness of the Asylum Application 2 The agency denied Sun’s October 2012 asylum application 3 as untimely, finding that it was filed more than a year 4 after his 2008 arrival in the United States, and not within 5 a “reasonable period” following Sun’s January 2012 “changed 6 circumstances.” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals