18-3358 Dai v. Barr BIA Kolbe, IJ A206 581 731 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 23rd day of November, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SHIZHUANG DAI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3358 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Greg 1 D. Mack, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; Shahrzad Baghai, Office 3 of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 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 DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. 10 Petitioner Shizhuang Dai, a native and citizen of China, 11 seeks review of an October 18, 2018, decision of the BIA 12 affirming an October 17, 2017, decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) denying Dai’s application for asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shizhuang Dai, No. A206 581 16 731 (B.I.A. Oct. 18, 2018), aff’g No. A206 581 731 (Immig. 17 Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 17, 2017). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 20 BIA, and assume credibility as the BIA did. See Xue Hong 21 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 22 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings under the 23 substantial evidence standard, treating them as “conclusive 24 unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 2 1 conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see 2 also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). “We 3 review de novo questions of law and the application of law to 4 undisputed fact.” Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 5 (2d Cir. 2008). 6 I. Asylum ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals