19-1340 Suo v. Barr BIA Zagzoug, IJ A206 565 581 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 December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MING SUO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1340 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jonathan A. 27 Robbins, Sherease Pratt, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Ming Suo, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 8, 2019, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a November 20, 2017, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Suo’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Suo, No. A206 11 565 581 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2019), aff’g No. A206 565 581 (Immig. 12 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 14 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 15 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 17 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 19 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 22 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 2 1 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the 2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 3 the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals