16-395 Ni v. Whitaker BIA Vomacka, IJ A075 841 782 A079 453 836 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 18th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 DENNIS JACOBS, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 YI CI NI, AI YUE CHEN, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 16-395 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 28 Linda S. Wernery, Assistant 29 Director; Thankful T. Vanderstar, 06152016-10 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 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 Yi Ci Ni and Ai Yue Chen, natives and 11 citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of 12 a January 14, 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the November 13 22, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yi Ci Ni, Ai Yue 16 Chen, Nos. A075 841 782, A079 453 836 (B.I.A. Jan. 14, 17 2016), aff’g Nos. A075 841 782, A079 453 836 (Immig. Ct. 18 N.Y. City Nov. 22, 2013). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 20 history in this case. 21 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s 22 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 23 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 24 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 2 07102018-6 1 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 2 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 Chen argued that she suffered past persecution for 4 discussing her support for Falun Gong in China and that she 5 fears persecution for practicing Falun Gong in the United 6 States. In pre-REAL ID ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals