19-3505 Ming Wen v. Garland BIA Cheng, IJ A200 237 531 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 April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YONG MING WEN, AKA YOU MING 14 WENG, AKA YOU MING WEN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3505 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: John Son Yong, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Jeffery R. 3 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Raya Jarawan, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 10 AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of 11 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Yong Ming Wen, a native and citizen of the 13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 8, 14 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a March 23, 2018, decision 15 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 16 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 17 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Ming Wen, No. 18 A200 237 531 (B.I.A. Oct. 8, 2019), aff’g No. A200 237 531 19 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 23, 2018). We assume the parties’ 20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 22 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 23 completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 24 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 25 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 26 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 3 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals