18-2041 Pan v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 686 245 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 14th day of April, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, SUSAN L. CARNEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LAI JUN PAN, Petitioner, v. 18-2041 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kimberly A. Burdge, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United 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 Lai Jun Pan, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 2, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an August 4, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Pan’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lai Jun Pan, No. A 206 686 245 (B.I.A. July 2, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 686 245 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals