18-1979 Yao v. Barr BIA Douchy, IJ A201 133 766 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 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 QIUMEI YAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1979 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal 28 H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 Qiumei Yao, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 18, 2018, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a July 14, 2017, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yao asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Qiumei Yao, No. A201 133 766 (B.I.A. June 18, 11 2018), aff’g No. A201 133 766 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 14, 12 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history. 14 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 15 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 16 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 17 applicable standards of review are well established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 19 (2d Cir. 2013). The agency did not err in concluding that 20 Yao failed to satisfy her burden of proving a well-founded 21 fear of future persecution in China on account of her practice 22 of Christianity. 2 1 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 2 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear 3 of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Hongsheng 4 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals