18-18 He v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A206 561 595 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 13th day of November, two thousand 5 nineteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 MICHAEL H. PARK, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 SHAOJIAN HE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-18 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Ting Geng, Law Office of Xin 24 Miao, LLC, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; David 29 Kim, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 Shaojian He, a native and citizen of China, 6 seeks review of a December 6, 2017, decision of the BIA 7 affirming an April 7, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying He’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”), and ordering He removed. In re Shaojian He, No. A 11 206 561 595 (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 561 595 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 7, 2017). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions 16 denying relief on credibility grounds. Hong Fei Gao v. 17 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B). 20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 22 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 23 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 2 1 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the 2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . ., 3 [and] the internal consistency of each such ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals