Jin v. Sessions

16-1987 Jin v. Sessions BIA Nelson, IJ A093 458 799 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 1st day of December, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MINGSHUN JIN, AKA MINGSHUN IN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1987 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jay Ho Lee, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 27 Wright, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Lori B. Warlick, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, 32 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 Mingshun Jin, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 14, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a February 23, 2010, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jin’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mingshun Jin, No. A093 458 799 11 (B.I.A. June 14, 2016), aff’g No. A093 458 799 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 12 City Feb. 23, 2010). 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 the 15 IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA and thus 16 review the BIA’s denial of Jin’s motion to remand, but not the 17 IJ’s discretionary denial of asylum, which the BIA did not 18 reach. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 19 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 20 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 2 1 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Li Yong Cao v. 2 U.S. Dep’t ...

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