18-2393 Huang v. Garland BIA Brennan, IJ A206 064 047 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 22nd day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ZHIZONG HUANG, Petitioner, v. 18-2393 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: David A. Bredin, Esq., Flushing, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel; Laura Halliday 1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. Hickein, 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 Zhizong Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 19, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an August 8, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Huang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhizong Huang, No. A 206 064 047 (B.I.A. July 19, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 064 047 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 8, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history to which we refer only as needed to explain our decision to deny the petition. Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 2 (2d Cir. 2018). As 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) provides: Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , without regard to whether an inconsistency, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals