17-2088 Yang-Jin v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A205 583 177 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 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HUA YANG-JIN, AKA JIN HUA YANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2088 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, Karikari & 24 Associates, P.C., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Douglas E. 28 Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Erik 29 R. Quick, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of 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 Hua Yang-Jin, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 9, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a December 7, 2016, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioner’s application 9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hua Yang-Jin, No. 11 A 205 583 177 (B.I.A. June 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 583 177 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 7, 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 BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 20 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination 21 under a substantial evidence standard). 2 1 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 2 as follows: 3 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 4 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 5 credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, 6 or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals