Cao v. Sessions

16-3933 Cao v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A206 068 543 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 5th day of February, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HU CAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3933 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Keith S. Barnett, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Margaret Kuehne 27 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Patricia E. Bruckner, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 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 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Hu Cao, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 4, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an October 30, 2015, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Cao’s application 9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hu Cao, No. A206 11 068 543 (B.I.A. Nov. 4, 2016), aff’g No. A206 068 543 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30, 2015). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the decision of the IJ as modified and supplemented by the 17 BIA. Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 18 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 19 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 20 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 21 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 22 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 23 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 1 determination on . . . the consistency between the 2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals