19-4103 Peng v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A208 168 079 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, 3 in the City of New York, on the 25th day of February, two thousand twenty-two. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNIS JACOBS, 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 JIAN CHANG PENG, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. No. 19-4103 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ. 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant 3 Attorney General; Jeffery R. Leist, Senior 4 Litigation Counsel; Colette J. Winston, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 9 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 10 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Jian Chang Peng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 12 China, seeks review of a November 26, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming an April 13 2, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian 15 Chang Peng, No. A208 168 079 (B.I.A. Nov. 26, 2019), aff’g No. A208 168 079 (Immig. 16 Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 2, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 17 facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong 19 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s 20 adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier 2 of fact may base a credibility determination on the . . . consistency between the 3 applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 4 statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 5 . . . without regard to whether an …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals