Li v. Sessions

16-380 Li v. Sessions BIA Wright, IJ A200 923 678 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 16th day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JIN LI, Petitioner, v. 16-380 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Office of Michael Brown, New York, N.Y. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Petitioner Jin Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 20, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a November 14, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Li’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Li, No. A200 923 678 (B.I.A. Jan. 20, 2016), aff’g No. A200 923 678 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 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); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 194, 196 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 I. Asylum Absent changed or extraordinary circumstances, an asylum application must be filed within one year of an applicant’s arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). We generally lack jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum as untimely or the agency’s findings regarding changed or extraordinary circumstances. We do have jurisdiction, however, to review “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Id. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D); Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 720-21 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency found that Li’s evidence was insufficient to establish his arrival in the United States within one year of ...

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