19-541 Li v. Wilkinson BIA Conroy, IJ A088 794 094 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 25th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZU LUAN LI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-541 17 NAC 18 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,* 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, 24 NY. 25 26 27 * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. 28 Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as 29 Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 2 Assistant Attorney General; Linda 3 S. Wernery, Assistant Director; 4 Monica M. Twombly, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, 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 Zu Luan Li, a native and citizen of the 13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 7, 14 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a November 15, 2017, 15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zu Luan Li, No. A 088 794 094 18 (B.I.A. Feb. 7, 2019), aff’g No. A 088 794 094 (Immig. Ct. 19 N.Y. City Nov. 15, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 20 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 22 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 23 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 24 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 25 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 2 1 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination 2 for substantial evidence). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals