18-2389 Meihua v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A087 403 415 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 18th day of September, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ NI MEIHUA, Petitioner, v. 18-2389 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: John S. Yong, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Jonathan Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel; D. Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. Petitioner Meihua Ni, 1 a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 23, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an August 17, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her asylum application. 2 In re Ni Meihua, No. A087 403 415 (B.I.A. Jul. 23, 2018), aff’g No. A087 403 415 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 17, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. “Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning and offers additional commentary, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). The applicable standards of review are well established. “We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, and its factual findings . . . under the substantial 1 Petitioner’s name, Meihua Ni, is transposed in the agency’s decisions as Ni Meihua. We refer to her in this order as “Ni.” 2Ni also applied for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, but did not appeal those denials to the BIA, nor does she challenge them in the present petition. 2 evidence standard.” Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Absent past persecution, a noncitizen may establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To do so, an applicant must show either a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals