Qiao v. Sessions

17-336 Qiao v. Sessions BIA Wright, IJ A205 883 049 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 22nd day of June, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, DENNIS JACOBS, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LANPING QIAO, Petitioner, v. 17-336 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Keith S. Barnett, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel; Anthony O. Pottinger, 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 Lanping Qiao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 5, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 16, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lanping Qiao, No. A205 883 049 (B.I.A. Jan. 5, 2017), aff’g No. A205 883 049 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 16, 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 the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Qiao argues only that she established her eligibility for asylum based on her claims of past persecution on account of two abortions she had under China’s family planning policy, and a detention and beating she suffered for reporting corruption by local government officials. The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 2 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). As discussed below, we find no error in the agency’s conclusion that Qiao failed to meet her burden of proof. Family Planning Claim A petitioner is eligible for asylum if she suffered past persecution on account of her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). “[A] person who has been forced to abort ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals