18-2983 Weng v. Barr BIA Brennan, IJ A206 463 015 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of August, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DUN SHENG WENG, Petitioner, v. 18-2983 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Law Office of Farah Loftus, Reseda, CA. FOR RESPONDENT: David J. Schor, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division, for Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Dun Sheng Weng, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a September 11, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a September 11, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Weng’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dun Sheng Weng, No. A 206 463 015 (B.I.A. Sept. 11, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 463 015 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 11, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility 2 determination for substantial evidence). As an initial matter, contrary to the government’s argument, Weng does dispute the agency’s credibility findings, albeit in a very conclusory way. Nevertheless, we have reviewed that determination and, as discussed below, conclude that it is supported by substantial evidence. “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals