17-815 Pan v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A077 997 552 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 16th day of October, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BIAO QING PAN, Petitioner, v. 17-815 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; Colette J. Winston, 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 Biao Qing Pan, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 14, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a July 21, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Pan’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Biao Qing Pan, No. A 077 997 552 (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 2017), aff’g No. A 077 997 552 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 21, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 Under the standards set forth in the REAL ID Act, the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the circumstances,” and may base an adverse credibility ruling on any inconsistencies in an applicant’s oral and written statements or other record evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. As discussed below, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pan was not credible. The agency reasonably concluded that Pan’s testimony about ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals