Huang v. Sessions

16-4147 Huang v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 416 575 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 11th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZENG EN HUANG, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-4147 18 NAC 19 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Cora J. Chang, New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Jessica E. 1 Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel; 2 Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Zeng En Huang, a native and citizen of the 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 30, 13 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a January 11, 2016, 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zeng En Huang, No. A205 416 17 575 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2016), aff’g No. A205 416 575 (Immig. 18 Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 11, 2016). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 20 in this case. 21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 22 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 23 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 24 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 2 1 are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 2 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 5 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 6 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the 7 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals