17-2136 Chenwu Yang v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 448 034 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 31st day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHENWU YANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2136 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Linda S. 27 Wernery, Assistant Director; Susan 28 Bennett Green, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Chenwu Yang, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 16, 2017, 10 decision of the BIA affirming an October 29, 2015, decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yang’s application for 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chenwu Yang, No. 14 A 205 448 034 (B.I.A. June 16, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 448 034 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 29, 2015). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 20 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 21 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 23 196 (2d Cir. 2009); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 2 1 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 3 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear 4 of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which 5 requires an applicant to “present credible testimony that he 6 subjectively fears ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals