19-107 Chen v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A206 511 312 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 25th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 QI XUAN CHEN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-107 17 NAC 18 MERRICK GARLAND, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq. New York, 24 NY. 25 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Cindy S. Ferrier , Assistant 2 Director; Kimberly A. Burdge, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Qi Xuan Chen, a native and citizen of the 13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 20, 14 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a November 15, 2017 15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re Qi Xuan Chen, 16 No. A 206 511 312 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 511 17 312 (Immig. Ct. Nov. 15, 2017). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions under the 20 substantial evidence standard. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 21 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005); also 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 23 (2d Cir. 2018). 24 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 25 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 1 determination on . . . the inherent plausibility of the 2 applicant’s . . . account, the consistency between the 3 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 4 the internal consistency of each such statement, the 5 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 6 . . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals