17-789 Dan v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A205 262 532 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 19th day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 WEN DAN, AKA DAN WENG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-789 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Russell J.E. 28 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 John D. Williams, 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 Wen Dan, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 27, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an April 21, 2016, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Wen Dan, No. A205 262 532 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 11 2017), aff’g No. A205 262 532 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 21, 12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 16 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 17 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 19 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 22 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 2 1 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 2 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the 3 applicant’s or witness’s written ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals