19-493 Hua v. Wilkinson BIA Hom, IJ A208 154 299 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 18th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ CHEN HUA, Petitioner, v. 19-493 NAC ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: [VACANT], Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Patricia E. Bruckner, Trial Attorney, Office 1Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted as Acting Attorney General. of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Chen Hua, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 8, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a November 20, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chen Hua, No. A208 154 299 (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2019), aff’g No. A208 154 299 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). . “We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings, under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that they be supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record 2 when considered as a whole.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). Hua alleged past persecution on account of his attendance at an unregistered church in China and a fear of future persecution on that basis and on account of his continued practice of Christianity in the United States. We find no error in the agency’s denial of relief. Credibility “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals