18-2049 Guan v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A202 024 043 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 21st day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YANFANG GUAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2049 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, Esq., 24 Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; Linda 28 S. Wernery, Assistant Director; 29 Gerald M. Alexander, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Yanfang Guan, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 19, 2018, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a July 31, 2017, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Guan’s application for 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yanfang Guan, No. 15 A202 024 043 (B.I.A. June 19, 2018), aff’g No. A202 024 043 16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 31, 2017). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 19 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 21 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 23 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 24 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 1 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 determination on . . . the inherent plausibility of the 3 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the 4 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 5 [and] the internal consistency …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals