18-3691 Fu v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A201 296 873 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 13th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LIU CHUI FU, AKA PEI FU LIU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3691 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, Esq., New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Claire L. 27 Workman, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Don G. Scroggin, Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Liu Chui Fu, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 20, 11 2018, decision of the BIA affirming an October 10, 2017, 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re Liu Chui Fu, 13 No. A 201 296 873 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2018), aff’g No. A 201 296 14 873 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 10, 2017). We assume the 15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 16 history. 17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See 18 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 19 The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 21 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 22 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 23 base a credibility determination on . . . the inherent 2 1 plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, the consistency 2 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 3 statements . . . , [and] the consistency of such statements 4 with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether 5 an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals