16-3851 Li-Shang v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A205 647 594 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 2nd day of April, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JIANXING LI-SHANG, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-3851 18 NAC 19 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 1 Attorney General; Daniel E. 2 Goldman, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel; Lindsay C. Dunn, Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration 5 Litigation, United States 6 Department of Justice, Washington, 7 DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Jianxing Li-Shang, a native and citizen of 14 the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 15 24, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a March 15, 2016, 16 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, 17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianxing Li-Shang, No. A205 19 647 594 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2016), aff’g No. A205 647 594 (Immig. 20 Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 15, 2016). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 22 in this case, in which Li-Shang applied for relief based on 23 his claims that he was beaten for opposing China’s family 24 planning policy and that he fears persecution as a Christian. 25 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 26 decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 2 1 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review 2 the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence 3 standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chuilu Liu v. 4 Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Diop v. 5 Lynch, 807 F.3d 70, 75 (4th Cir. 2015) (“The IJ’s factual 6 finding of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals