17-217 Meng v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A200 275 830 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 7th day of September,two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZHENLIANG MENG, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-217 18 NAC 19 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Louis H. Klein, The Kasen Law 27 Firm, PLLC, Flushing, NY. 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 1 Attorney General; Anthony P. 2 Nicastro, Assistant Director; S. 3 Nicole Nardone, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of 6 Justice, Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Zhenliang Meng, a native and citizen of the 13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 28, 14 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a December 10, 2015, 15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Meng’s 16 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 17 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhenliang 18 Meng, No. A200 275 830 (B.I.A. Dec. 28, 2016), aff’g No. A200 19 275 830 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 10, 2015). We assume the 20 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 21 history in this case. 22 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 23 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 24 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 25 standards of review are well established: we review factual 26 findings for substantial evidence and legal issues de novo. 2 1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 2 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 3 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 4 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 5 that the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 6 circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals