20-3880 Mai v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A206 283 943/944 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 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 24th day of July, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 MYRNA PÉREZ, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LIYAN MAI, JINWEI WANG, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 20-3880 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Troy Nader Moslemi, Esq., 25 Flushing, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Nancy E. 1 Friedman, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; Virginia Lum, Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioners Liyan Mai and Jinwei Wang, natives and 11 citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of an 12 October 22, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a July 26, 13 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied 14 Mai’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 In 15 re Liyan Mai, Jinwei Wang, Nos. A206 283 943/944 (B.I.A. Oct. 16 22, 2020), aff’g Nos. A206 283 943/944 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 17 July 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See 20 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 21 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 1 Mai does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she waived her claim under the Convention Against Torture. Wang, who is Mai’s husband, is a derivative applicant on Mai’s application. 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of 2 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 3 be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v. 4 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse 5 credibility determination for substantial evidence). 6 The IJ may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 7 circumstances, and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals