17-2062 Ma v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A206 068 589 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 30th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 KAIFENG MA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2062 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Raymond Lo, Jersey City, NJ. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 28 Patricia E. Bruckner, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 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 DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 5 Petitioner Kaifeng Ma, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 7, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a November 14, 2016, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ma’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Kaifeng Ma, No. 11 A 206 068 589 (B.I.A. June 7, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 068 589 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2016). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 “[W]e review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by 16 the BIA.” Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). 17 The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d 19 Cir. 2009); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 20 2009). 21 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to 22 sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but 23 only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the 2 1 applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers 2 to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals