19-6 Wei v. Barr BIA Douchy, IJ A205 288 270 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 August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 QIANG WEI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-6 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: John S. Yong, Esq., New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 28 Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney; 1 Alma C. Atassi, Legal Intern, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Qiang Wei, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 14, 11 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a November 14, 2017, 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wei’s 13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiang 15 Wei, No. A 205 288 270 (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A 16 205 288 270 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 14, 2017). We assume the 17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 18 history. 19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 21 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 2 1 Cir. 2018); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 2 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 3 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the 4 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” the 5 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his 6 statements or between his statements and other evidence, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals