19-2345 Zhuang v. Garland BIA Loprest, IJ A205 444 743 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 17th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LIFEN ZHUANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2345 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.* 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Lombardi, Esq., New 24 York, NY. * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 3 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 4 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal 5 H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office 6 of Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Lifen Zhuang, a native and citizen of the 15 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 2, 2019, 16 decision of the BIA affirming a January 8, 2018, decision of 17 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhuang’s application for 18 withholding of removal. In re Lifen Zhuang, No. A205 444 743 19 (B.I.A. July 2, 2019), aff’g No. A205 444 743 (Immig. Ct. 20 N.Y. City Jan. 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 21 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 22 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the 23 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 24 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 25 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are 26 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 2 1 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). Contrary 2 to the Government’s contention, Zhuang’s brief sufficiently 3 challenges the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 4 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 5 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 6 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 7 the applicant or witness, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals