20-3088 Kai v. Garland BIA Navarro, IJ A206 636 123 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 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 3rd day of April, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 EUNICE C. LEE, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 CHEN KAI, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 20-3088 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, Esq., 27 Flushing, NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Cindy S. 3 Ferrier, Assistant Director; Marie 4 V. Robinson, Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Chen Kai, a native and citizen of the People’s 13 Republic of China, seeks review of an August 14, 2020, 14 decision of the BIA affirming a July 12, 2018, decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chen Kai, No. A 206 636 123 18 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2020, aff’g No. A 206 636 123 (Immigr. Ct. 19 N.Y. City July 12, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 20 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have considered the decisions of both the IJ and the 22 BIA. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 262 (2d 23 Cir. 2007). The applicable standards of review are well 24 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (”[T]he 25 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 3 Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for 4 substantial evidence); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 5 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for 6 substantial evidence and questions of law, including 7 application of law to fact, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals