17-723 Chen Zheg v. Barr BIA Zagzoug, IJ A205 402 522 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 10th day of June, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TONG CHEN ZHEG, AKA TONG CHEN 14 ZHEN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-723 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Jessica E. Burns, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Scott M. 1 Marconda, Trial Attorney, Office 2 of Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Tong Chen Zheg, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 2, 2017 12 decision of the BIA affirming a June 10, 2016 decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen Zheg’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tong Chen Zheg, 16 No. A 205 402 522 (B.I.A. Mar. 2, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 402 17 522 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 10, 2016). We assume the 18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 19 history in this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 21 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, reviewing only the 22 adverse credibility ruling. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 23 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review 24 adverse credibility determinations under a substantial 2 1 evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 2 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The 3 governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides as 4 follows: 5 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 6 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 7 credibility ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals