16-90 Chi v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A087 392 900 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. 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 11th day of December, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DONG JIANG CHI, Petitioner, v. 16-90 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Cora J. Chang, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel; Colin J. Tucker, Trial Attorney; Sarah C. Martin, Law Clerk, 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. Petitioner Dong Jiang Chi, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 11, 2015 decision of the BIA affirming an April 11, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chi’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dong Jiang Chi, No. A087 392 900 (B.I.A. Dec. 11, 2015), aff’g No. A087 392 900 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 11, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we address the adverse credibility determination and the agency’s conclusion that Chi failed independently to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. 2 Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on an applicant’s internally inconsistent testimony, discrepancies between an applicant’s oral and written statements and between an applicant’s statements and other record evidence, as well as an applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals