18-176 Dong v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A208 190 350/352 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 19th day of February, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ YU MEI DONG, JIA ZHANG JIANG, AKA MING KU, Petitioners, v. 18-176 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Law Office of Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, 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. Petitioners Yu Mei Dong and Jia Zhang Jiang, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of a January 5, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a May 10, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.1 In re Yu Mei Dong and Jia Zhang Jiang, No. A 208 190 350/352 (BIA Jan. 5, 2018), aff’g No. A 208 190 350/352 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 10, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 1 The IJ also denied Petitioners protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA determined that Petitioners had not appealed the portion of the IJ’s decision addressing their CAT claims, and Petitioners do not challenge that holding. 2 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on” inconsistencies between an applicant’s statements or between statements and other evidence or witnesses. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals