18-1729 Fu v. Barr BIA Sponzo, IJ A202 024 313 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of December, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, SUSAN L. CARNEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ TIANQI FU, Petitioner, v. No. 18-1729 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: GARY J. YERMAN, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: BRENDAN P. HOGAN, Attorney (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief) for Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Tianqi Fu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tianqi Fu, No. A202 024 313 (B.I.A. May 18, 2018), aff’g No. A202 024 313 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case, to which we refer only as required to explain our decision to deny the petition. We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Fu failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Fu makes no claim of past persecution. Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating “that he has a well-founded fear of future 2 persecution, which requires that the alien present credible testimony that he subjectively fears persecution and establish that his fear is objectively reasonable.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To demonstrate such a well-founded fear, an applicant must show either ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals