17-1774 Cao v. Barr BIA Lamb, IJ A200 749 685 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 27th day of August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SU HUA CAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1774 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., Yerman & 24 Jia, LLC, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Andrew N. 28 O’Malley, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Victoria M. Braga, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DISMISSED. 5 Petitioner Sua Hua Cao, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 21, 7 2016 decision of the BIA affirming a March 30, 2016 decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Cao’s application for 9 asylum as untimely. In re Su Hua Cao, No. A 200 749 685 10 (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2016), aff’g No. A 200 749 685 (Immig. Ct. 11 N.Y. City Mar. 30, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 12 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 14 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 15 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 An asylum applicant must “demonstrate[] by clear and 17 convincing evidence that the application has been filed 18 within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the 19 United States,” absent exceptions not relevant here. 8 20 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (providing exceptions for 21 changed or extraordinary circumstances). Our jurisdiction 22 to review an IJ’s determination regarding the timeliness of 2 1 an asylum application is limited to constitutional claims 2 and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. §§ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals