17-3224 (L) Hu v. Barr BIA Kolbe, IJ A206 580 020 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 12th day of May, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 KAIJUN HU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3224 (L), 17 18-1707 (Con) 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Holly M. Smith, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Jesse D. 29 Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 4 are DENIED. 5 Petitioner Kaijun Hu, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 14, 7 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a January 9, 2017 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Hu’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Kaijun 11 Hu, No. A 206 580 020 (B.I.A. Sept. 14, 2017), aff’g No. A 12 206 580 020 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 9, 2017). Hu also 13 seeks review of a May 14, 2018 decision of the BIA denying 14 Hu’s motion to reopen. In re Kaijun Hu, No. A 206 580 020 15 (B.I.A. May 14, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 16 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 17 case. 18 Family Planning Claim 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 21 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 22 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun 23 v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing 2 1 factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of 2 law and the application of law ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals