Liang v. Sessions

16-3247 Liang v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 288 210 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 11th day of December, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 XUN HUA LIANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3247 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, Law Office of Michael 24 Brown, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Janette L. Allen, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Neelam 29 Ihsanullah, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 7 DENIED. 8 Petitioner Xun Hua Liang, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 25, 2016 10 decision of the BIA affirming a June 15, 2015 decision of an 11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Liang’s application for 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xun Hua Liang, No. A206 288 210 14 (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2016), aff’g No. A206 288 210 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. 15 June 15, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 18 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 20 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 21 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 22 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 23 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 24 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 1 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 2 . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency 3 of ...

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