18-781 Piao v. Barr BIA Nelson, IJ A201 132 574 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 18th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MINGJI PIAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-781 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Esq., Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Russell J. E. 27 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 John D. Williams, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 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 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 5 Petitioner Mingji Piao, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2018 7 decision of the BIA affirming a May 18, 2017 decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Piao asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Mingji Piao, No. A201 132 574 (B.I.A. Mar. 11 8, 2018), aff’g No. A201 132 574 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 18, 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); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 19 27 (2d Cir. 2018). 20 A. Asylum 21 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission 22 of Piao’s asylum application as untimely for being filed more 23 than one year after her arrival in the United States. See 2 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). The record belies 2 Piao’s contention that the agency failed to consider all the 3 reasons she proffered to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals