16-2579 Guo v. Sessions BIA Segal, IJ A205 616 677 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 3rd day of April, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ YOUQUAN GUO, Petitioner, v. No. 16-2579 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Youquan Guo, pro se, Flushing, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Janette L. Allen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jessica D. Strokus, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 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. Petitioner Youquan Guo, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Youquan Guo, No. A205 616 677 (B.I.A. June 27, 2016), aff’g No. A205 616 677 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 22, 2015). Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, “we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination,” Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008), applying well-established standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition for review. 2 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse credibility finding on inconsistencies and omissions in an asylum applicant’s testimony, application, and documentary evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 167. Here, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Guo was not credible. The IJ reasonably concluded that Guo’s testimony materially contradicted his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals