17-875 Lin v. Barr BIA Lamb, IJ A205 611 039 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 8th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DONG LIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-875 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael E. Piston, Piston & 24 Carpenter, P.C., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Tracey N. McDonald, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 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 Dong Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 28, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a June 8, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dong Lin, No. A 11 205 611 039 (B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 611 039 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 8, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 20 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination 21 under a substantial evidence standard); Gjerjaj v. Holder, 2 1 691 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2012) (reviewing constitutional 2 claims de novo). 3 The agency denied Lin’s application, finding that he was 4 not credible given misrepresentations that undermined his 5 alleged practice of Christianity. The governing ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals