Jiang v. Sessions

16-1388 Jiang v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 390 719 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 10th day of October, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WEI JIANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1388 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Leslie 27 McKay, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Wei Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 30, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA affirming an April 23, 2015, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jiang’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wei Jiang, No. A205 390 719 11 (B.I.A. Mar. 30, 2016), aff’g No. A205 390 719 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 12 City Apr. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 15 the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 16 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The applicable 17 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165–66 19 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The agency may, “[c]onsidering 20 the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding 21 on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” 2 1 and inconsistencies in his testimony, his witness’s testimony, 2 and his documentary evidence, “without regard to whether” any 3 such inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 4 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); ...

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