Ma v. Garland

20-3780 Ma v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 064 009 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 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 the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 5th day of June, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 EUNICE C. LEE, 9 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YINAN MA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3780 17 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: DEHAI ZHANG, Esq., Flushing, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: ROBERT MICHAEL STALZER, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation (Stephen J. 5 Flynn, Assistant Director, on the brief) for 6 Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 7 Attorney General, Civil Division, United 8 States Department of Justice, Washington, 9 D.C. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 12 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Yinan Ma, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, 15 seeks review of an October 28, 2020, decision of the BIA denying her motion to 16 remand and affirming a July 16, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 17 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yinan Ma, No. A206 064 009 (B.I.A. 19 Oct. 28, 2020), aff’g No. A206 064 009 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. July 16, 2018). The basis 20 of Ma’s claim is that she was forced to have an abortion in 2013 after removing an 21 intrauterine device (“IUD”) and becoming pregnant with a second child in 22 violation of China’s family planning policy. We assume the parties’ familiarity 23 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 2 1 I. Adverse Credibility Determination 2 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 3 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review an adverse credibility 4 determination “under the substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 5 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact are 6 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 7 the …

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