19-4214 Penghui v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A208 582 984 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 19th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SUN PENGHUI, AKA PENGHUI SUN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-4214 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Sherman Oaks, CA. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jeffrey R. 28 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 1 Raya Jarawan, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic 10 of China, seeks review of a December 3, 2019 decision of the 11 BIA affirming a March 19, 2018 decision of an Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, 13 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 14 re Sun Penghui, No. A 208 582 984 (B.I.A. Dec. 3, 2019), aff’g 15 No. A 208 582 984 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 19, 2018). We 16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 17 procedural history. 18 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 19 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 22 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d 23 Cir. 2008) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 2 1 evidence and reviewing de novo questions of law and the 2 application of law to facts). The agency did not err in 3 finding that Penghui failed to meet his burden to show past 4 persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future 5 persecution. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 6 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Ramsameachire v. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals