19-1714 Jia-Tao v. Wilkinson BIA Segal, IJ A206 429 050 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 2nd day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WENG JIA-TAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1714 17 NAC 18 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: John Son Yong, Esq. 24 New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 28 Director; Joseph D. Hardy, Trial 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 9 DENIED. 10 Petitioner Weng Jia-Tao, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 28, 2019, 12 decision of the BIA affirming a January 10, 2018, decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jia-Tao’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Weng Jia-Tao, No. A206 429 050 16 (B.I.A. May 28, 2019), aff’g No. A206 429 050 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. 17 Jan. 10, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and 20 the BIA’s opinions under the substantial evidence standard. 21 See Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006); see 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 23 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 24 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 25 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency 26 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 1 statements . . . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals