Qiu v. Sessions

16-2711 Qiu v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A205 890 367 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 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 9th day of April, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LI QING QIU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2711 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jay Ho Lee, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 27 Assistant Director; Brendan P. 28 Hogan, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Li Qing Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 21, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a May 21, 2015, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Li Qing Qiu, No. A205 890 367 (B.I.A. July 21, 11 2016), aff’g No. A205 890 367 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 21, 12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 13 facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 15 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 16 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 17 standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 19 Cir. 2009). 20 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish 21 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of 22 future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must be 23 both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable, 2 1 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 2 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show either 3 ...

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