19-3581 Lin v. Rosen BIA Douchy, IJ A208 597 828 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 29th day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 RENNA RAGGI, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LIQUN LIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3581 17 NAC 18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.* 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffrey E. Baron, Baron & 24 Shelkin, P.C., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Shelley R. Goad, Assistant 29 Director; Julia J. Tyler, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 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 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Liqun Lin, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 22, 10 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 5, 2018 decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Liqun Lin, No. A208 597 828 (B.I.A. Oct. 22, 14 2019), aff’g No. A208 597 828 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 5, 15 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 18 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 19 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 20 applicable standards of review are well established. See 21 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 22 (2d Cir. 2013). The agency did not err in concluding that 23 Lin failed to satisfy her burden of proving a well-founded 24 fear of future persecution on account of her practice of 25 Christianity in an unregistered church in China and her escape 2 1 from a raid ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals