17-687 Jin v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A087 980 955 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 23rd day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHUNHUA JIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-687 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Terri J. 27 Scadron, Assistant Director; 28 Anthony W. Norwood, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 9 Petitioner Chunhua Jin, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 10, 11 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a November 2, 2015, 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her 13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chunhua 15 Jin, No. A 087 980 955 (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 16 980 955 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 2, 2015). We assume the 17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 18 history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 the IJ’s decisions as modified by the BIA, i.e., without 21 reaching the IJ’s adverse credibility or corroboration 22 rulings. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 23 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA declined to 2 1 reach the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, we assume that 2 Jin testified credibly. Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 3 68 (2d Cir. 2011). 4 I. Asylum & Withholding of Removal 5 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, Jin was 6 required to “establish that race, religion, nationality, 7 membership in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals