18-2585 Wu v. Garland BIA Cassin, IJ A200 929 089 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 16th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SAIGUAN WU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2585 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhiyuan Qian, Law Office of David 24 Chien, P.C., New York, NY. 1 Pursuantto Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted for former U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 3 Assistant Director; Todd J. 4 Cochran, Trial Attorney; Katherine 5 V. Phillips, Law Clerk, Office of 6 Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 11 AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of 12 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Saiguan Wu, a native and citizen of the 14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 1, 2018 15 decision of the BIA affirming an August 29, 2017 decision of 16 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 17 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Saiguan Wu, No. 19 A200 929 089 (B.I.A. Aug. 1, 2018), aff’g No. A200 929 089 20 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 22 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 23 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., without the 24 inconsistencies that the IJ identified with respect to Wu’s 25 travel from China and which days he attended church services 26 in the United States that the BIA did not rely on. See Xue 27 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 2 1 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 2 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 3 Sessions, 891 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals