20-3068 Gu v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A208 019 273 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 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 15th day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 11 ALISON J. NATHAN, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 XIANG GU, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 20-3068 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: John Chang, Esq., New York, NY. 27 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, 3 Assistant Director; Corey L. 4 Farrell, Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Xiang Gu, a native and citizen of the People’s 14 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 4, 2020, 15 decision of the BIA affirming a September 19, 2018, decision 16 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 17 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 18 (“CAT”). In re Xiang Gu, No. A208-019-273 (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 19 2020), aff’g No. A208-019-273 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 19, 20 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 21 underlying facts and procedural history. 22 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 23 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 24 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 25 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he 26 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 contrary . . . .”); Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 3 Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 4 evidence and questions of law de novo). 5 It is undisputed that Gu is not eligible for asylum 6 solely based on his former wife’s forced abortion in 2012. 7 See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 494 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals