21-6291 Jin-Lian v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 636 124 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 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 the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of July, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LIU JIN-LIAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6291 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 2 Attorney General; Russell J. E. Verby, Senior 3 Litigation Counsel; John D. Williams, Senior 4 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 5 Litigation, United States Department of 6 Justice, Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 8 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 9 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Liu Jin-Lian, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 11 China, seeks review of an April 30, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming an October 12 9, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Liu Jin-Lian, No. A 206 636 124 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2021), aff’g No. A 15 206 636 124 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 16 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s 18 opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 19 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse credibility determinations “under 20 the substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 21 2018), and treat the agency’s fact-finding as “conclusive unless any reasonable 2 1 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances . . . a trier of fact may base a 4 credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the 5 applicant . . . , the consistency between the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals