19-134 Jiang v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A206 567 109 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 6th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JINGLIANG JIANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-134 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND,UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Vlad Kuzmin, New York, NY. 25 1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Jeffery R. Leist, Senior 3 Litigation Counsel; Jessica D. 4 Strokus, Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Jingliang Jiang, a native and citizen of 13 China, seeks review of a December 14, 2018, decision of the 14 BIA affirming a November 17, 2017, decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 16 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 17 re Jingliang Jiang, No. A 206 567 109 (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2018), 18 aff’g No. A 206 567 109 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 17, 2017). 19 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 20 and procedural history. 21 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 22 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 23 Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We 24 review adverse credibility determinations under the 25 substantial evidence standard and treat the agency’s findings 2 1 of fact as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 2 would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 4 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 5 circumstances . . . a trier of fact may base a credibility 6 determination on the demeanor, candor, or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals