16-4074 He v. Sessions BIA Sichel, IJ A200 748 061 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 12th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 XIANG JIAN HE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-4074 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Law Office of Farah 24 Loftus, Los Angeles, CA. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Virginia Lum, Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Xiang Jian He, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 17, 10 2016 decision of the BIA affirming a January 22, 2016 decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying He’s application for 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiang Jian He, No. 14 A 200 748 061 (B.I.A. Nov. 17, 2016), aff’g No. A 200 748 061 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 22, 2016). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both 19 the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 20 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s 21 adverse credibility determination to assess whether it is 22 supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 24 66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the 2 1 totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse credibility 2 determination on discrepancies between an applicant’s and a 3 witness’s testimony, as well as on internal inconsistencies 4 in an applicant’s testimony. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 5 Xiu Xia Lin, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals