16-2052 Gong v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 560 419 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 19th day of December, two thousand 5 seventeen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 SHANGBIN GONG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2052 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Craig 28 A. Newell, Jr., Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Shangbin Gong, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 3, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA, affirming an April 24, 2015, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Gong’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shangbin Gong, No. 11 A206 560 419 (B.I.A. June 3, 2016), aff’g No. A206 560 419 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 24, 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 16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 18 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s 19 adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. 20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 21 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 22 2 1 For asylum applications like Gong’s, governed by the 2 REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of 3 the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an 4 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” and on 5 inconsistencies in an applicant’s statements and evidence. 6 8 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals