18-256 Wu v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A209 218 799 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 23rd day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JIN MEI WU, AKA JINMEI WU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-256 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, Esq., New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Yanal H. Yousef, 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 Jin Mei Wu, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 29, 7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming an April 26, 2017, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Mei Wu, No. A209 218 799 11 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2017), aff’g No. A209 218 799 (Immig. Ct. 12 N.Y. City Apr. 26, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the 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); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 19 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 consistency between the applicant’s 2 1 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal 2 consistency of each such statement, [and] ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals