17-1490 Zhang v. Whitaker BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A087 986 601 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 22nd day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JIANZHI ZHANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1490 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jianzhi Zhang, pro se, Far 24 Rockaway, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; John M. 29 McAdams, Jr., Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States 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 Jianzhi Zhang, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 12, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an August 4, 2016, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianzhi Zhang, No. 11 A 087 986 601 (B.I.A. Apr. 12, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 986 601 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 16 the BIA. Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). 17 We review adverse credibility determinations under a 18 substantial evidence standard. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 19 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the 20 totality of the circumstances, . . . a trier of fact may base 21 a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between 22 the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements 23 . . . the internal consistency of each such statement, the 2 1 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 2 . . . and any inaccuracies ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals