17-1025 Jing v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A206 722 634 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of March, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge.* _____________________________________ XINGYU JING, AKA XIANG YU JIANG, Petitioner, v. 17-1025 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: MONA LIZA F. LAO, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: TRACIE N. JONES, Trial Attorney; Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant * Judge Margo K. Brodie, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Xingyu Jing (“Jing”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 15, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming an August 3, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xingyu Jing, No. A206 722 634 (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 2017), aff’g No. A206 722 634 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 3, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, . . . a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , [and] the internal consistency of each such statement . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jing was not credible as to his claim that Chinese officials detained and beat him on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals