17-3226 Huang v. Barr BIA Tsankov, IJ A098 469 134 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 30th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HAIFAN HUANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3226 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Yok-seung Chiu, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony C. 27 Payne, Assistant Director; Liza S. 28 Murcia, Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 Haifan Huang, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 15, 7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming an April 28, 2017, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Huang’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Haifan 11 Huang, No. A 098 469 134 (B.I.A. Sept. 15, 2017), aff’g No. 12 A 098 469 134 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 28, 2017). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 16 and modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 17 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 18 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Because Huang 19 does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that she is 20 ineligible for asylum because she committed a particularly 21 serious crime, we consider only her eligibility for 22 withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Yueqing Zhang v. 23 Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). The 2 1 applicable standards of review are well established. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 3 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals