20-2029 Chaohui Dong v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A206 053 450 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 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 24th day of April, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, BETH ROBINSON, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ CHAOHUI DONG, AKA DONG CHAOHUI, Petitioner, v. 20-2029 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., The Yerman Group, LLC, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris, 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 in part and DISMISSED in part. Petitioner Chaohui Dong (“Dong”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 10, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a May 30, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. In re Chaohui Dong, No. A 206 053 450 (B.I.A. June 10, 2010), aff’g No. A 206 053 450 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 30, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and 2 questions of law de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Our review of the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 319–22 (2d Cir. 2009). I. Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief Dong asserted a fear of persecution in China on account of his practice of Christianity in the United States. Accordingly, he had the burden to establish an “objectively reasonable” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals