21-6192 Qin v. Garland BIA Navarro, IJ A 202 049 598 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 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 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of May, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HUABIN QIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6192 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 1 FOR PETITIONER: Aleksander Boleslaw Milch, The Kasen Law 2 Firm, PLLC, Flushing, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation 6 Counsel; Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorney, 7 Office of Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Huabin Qin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 13 China, seeks review of March 12, 2021 decision of the BIA affirming a February 4, 14 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Huabin Qin, No. A 202 049 598 (B.I.A. Mar. 12, 2021), aff’g No. A 17 202 049 598 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 4, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review the 20 decision of the IJ directly. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 21 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and 22 questions of law de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2 1 2009); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are 2 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 3 the contrary.”). Applying those standards, we conclude that the IJ did not err in 4 finding that Qin did not establish that a political opinion was one central reason 5 that the police arrested and beat him …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals