18-2305 Man v. Garland BIA Hom, IJ A206 231 032 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, SUSAN L. CARNEY, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LIN MAN, Petitioner, v. 18-2305 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, The Yerman Group, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Lindsay Marshall, Office of Immigration Litigation, United * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to conform to the above. States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Lin Man, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 23, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an August 11, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Man’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin Man, No. A 206 231 032 (B.I.A. July 23, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 231 032 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 11, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination under a substantial 2 evidence standard). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, . . . or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals