19-140 Lin v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A206 899 515 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 18th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ WENHUI LIN, Petitioner, v. 19-140 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, Law Office of Zhen Liang Li, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Sherry D. Soanes, 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 Wenhui Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 20, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a November 1, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Wenhui Lin, No. A 206 899 515 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 899 515 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 1, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the inconsistency in the arrest warrant that the BIA declined to rely on. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018); see also 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals