Ou v. Sessions

16-2884 Ou v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A201 128 205 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 1st day of May, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 QIJUN OU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2884 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 27 Assistant Director; Brooke M. 28 Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Qijun Ou, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 29, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA affirming an April 17, 2015, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ou’s application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qijun Ou, No. A 201 128 205 11 (B.I.A. July 29, 2016), aff’g No. A 201 128 205 (Immig. Ct. 12 N.Y. C. Apr. 17, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. 16 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 17 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 19 66 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam). 20 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 21 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum 22 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness” and any 23 inconsistencies and omissions in his testimony, 2 1 application, and documentary evidence. 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 3 163-64, 167. “We defer . . ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals