17-2455 Zhao v. Barr BIA Lamb, IJ A206 052 320 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 20th day of November, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 QINGHONG ZHAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2455 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Wei Gu, Albertson, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Carl H. 27 McIntyre, Assistant Director; 28 Justin R. Markel, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel, 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 Qinghong Zhao, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 13, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a November 7, 2016, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhao’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qinghong Zhao, No. 11 A 206 052 320 (B.I.A. July 13, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 052 320 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 7, 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. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 17 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 19 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76–77 (2d Cir. 2018). In making a 20 credibility determination, the agency must “[c]onsider[] the 21 totality of the circumstances” and may base a finding on the 22 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness . . . , the 2 1 inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account,” 2 inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements or between her 3 statements and other evidence, “without regard to whether an 4 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals