18-2218 Shi v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A202 037 191 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 17th day of April, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YUAN LAN SHI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2218 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Esq., Belle Mead, 24 NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 28 Assistant Director; Andrew N. 1 O’Malley, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Yuan Lan Shi, a native and citizen of China, 11 seeks review of a July 17, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming 12 an August 8, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 13 denying Shi’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 14 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 15 re Yuan Lan Shi, No. A 202 037 191 (B.I.A. Jul. 17, 2018), 16 aff’g No. A 202 037 191 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 8, 2017). 17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 18 and procedural history in this case. 19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 21 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 22 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 23 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 24 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility 2 1 determination for substantial evidence). 2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 3 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 4 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 5 the applicant . . . , the consistency between the applicant’s 6 . . . written and oral statements ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals