Ma v. Sessions

16-2185 Ma v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A205 240 453 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 19th day of December, two thousand 5 seventeen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JIANZHONG MA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-2185 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Jianzhong Ma, pro se, Flushing, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 29 Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior 30 Litigation Counsel; Timothy G. 31 Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of 32 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Jianzhong Ma, a native and citizen of the 8 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 26, 2016, 9 decision of the BIA affirming a March 10, 2015, decision of 10 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ma’s application for 11 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 12 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianzhong Ma, No. 13 A205 240 453 (B.I.A. May 26, 2016), aff’g No. A205 240 453 14 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 10, 2015). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 16 in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA. 19 Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007); Xue Hong 20 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 21 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 22 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 23 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Y.C. v. Holder, 24 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 2 1 I. Adverse Credibility Ruling 2 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 3 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination 4 on discrepancies between an ...

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