19-3347 Wu v. Wilkinson BIA Wright, IJ A206 287 902 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 23rd day of February, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ HAIPENG WU, Petitioner, v. 19-3347 NAC ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Esq., Flushing, NY. 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. FOR RESPONDENT: [VACANT], Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey C. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; Judith R. O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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 Haipeng Wu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 30, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 1, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Haipeng Wu, No. A206 287 902 (B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2019), aff’g No. A 206 287 902 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 1, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). “We review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, including those underlying the 2 immigration court’s determination that an alien has failed to satisfy his burden of proof.” Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We find no error in the agency’s conclusion that Wu failed to meet his burden of proof. “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration,” but the factfinder weighs the testimony and other evidence and, “[w]here the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals