Chunhua Ma v. Sessions

16-2686 Chunhua Ma v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 811 584 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 28th day of February, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHUNHUA MA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2686 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Daniel E. Goldman, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Lindsay 28 C. Dunn, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Chunhua Ma, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 13, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a February 26, 2015, decision of 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Aviva L. Poczter denying Ma’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chunhua 11 Ma, No. A 205 811 584 (B.I.A. July 13, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 811 12 584 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 26, 2015). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 16 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 17 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The standards 18 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 19 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-67 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 21 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on 22 inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s oral and written 2 1 statements and other record evidence. 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67. 3 “We defer . . . to ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals