16‐398‐ag Peng Lin v. Sessions BIA Morace, IJ A205 930 983 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 COURTʹS 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 ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). A PARTY CITING 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 23rd day of April, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x PENG LIN, AKA JIEDI LIN, Petitioner, v. 16‐398‐ag JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x FOR PETITIONER: TROY NADER MOSLEMI, Flushing, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: CHRISTOPHER BUCHANAN, Trial Attorney, (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Melissa Neiman‐ Kelting, Assistant Director, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the ʺBIAʺ), IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is hereby DENIED. Petitioner Peng Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 19, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming the May 18, 2015 decision of an Immigration Judge (ʺIJʺ) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (ʺCATʺ). In re Peng Lin, No. A205 930 983 (B.I.A. Jan. 19, 2016), aff’g No. A205 930 983 (Immig. Ct. New York City, May 18, 2015). We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal. Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the IJʹs and the BIAʹs opinions ʺfor the sake of completeness.ʺ Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165‐66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). ‐ 2 ‐ Substantial evidence supports the agencyʹs determination that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals