17-3898 Yan v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A208 922 045 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 29th day of October, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YOULIN YAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3898 17 NAC 18 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: John S. Yong, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Linda S. 28 Wernery, Assistant Director; 29 Steven K. Uejio, 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 Youlin Yan, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 15, 7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 13, 2017, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Youlin Yan, No. 11 A208 922 045 (B.I.A. Nov. 15, 2017), aff’g No. A208 922 045 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 13, 2017). 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 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 21 Adverse Credibility Determination 22 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 23 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 1 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 2 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . [and] the 3 internal consistency of each such ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals