18-3381 Li v. Rosen BIA Zagzoug, IJ A206 054 736 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 4th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 XIAO FANG LI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3381 17 NAC 18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: John S. Yong, Esq., New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General; Mary 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr as Respondent. 1 Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; 2 Stephanie E. Beckett, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Xiao Fang Li, a native and citizen of the 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 24, 13 2018, decision of the BIA that affirmed an October 24, 2017, 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”), and denied Li’s motion to remand. 17 In re Xiao Fang Li, No. A206 054 736 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2018), 18 aff’g No. A206 054 736 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 24, 2017). 19 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 20 and procedural history. 21 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 22 decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 23 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 24 2 1 A. Adverse Credibility Determination 2 The applicable standards of review are well established. 3 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 4 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 5 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 6 base a credibility determination ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals