17-1092 Li v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A073 609 691 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 22nd day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GUANGZHAO LI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1092 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principle Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Leslie 27 McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Siu P. Wong, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Guangzhao Li, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 29, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a May 24, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Guangzhao Li, No. A073 609 691 (B.I.A. Mar. 11 29, 2017), aff’g No. A073 609 691 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 12 24, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 15 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 16 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 17 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 18 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia 19 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per 20 curiam)(applying substantial evidence review to factual 21 findings). 2 1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 2 determination that Li was not credible. And, even assuming 3 Li’s credibility as to his practice of Christianity, Li did 4 not establish a pattern or practice of persecution of 5 underground Christian church participants in his home 6 province ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals