17-666 He v. Whitaker BIA Loprest, IJ A206 068 710 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 3rd day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 QIU DI HE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-666 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, 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 Qiu Di He, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 21, 7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a July 13, 2016, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying He’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiu Di He, No. 11 A206 068 710 (B.I.A. Feb. 21, 2017), aff’g No. A206 068 710 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 13, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 18 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 19 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 20 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 21 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 22 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 1 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 2 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the 3 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals