17-602 Shen v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A098 603 482 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 3rd day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 XUEHUA SHEN, AKA CHOI SUL MAE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-602 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Xuehua Shen, Pro Se, Flushing, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Keith I. 28 McManus, Assistant Director; Juria 29 L. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 4 is DENIED in part, and DISMISSED in part. 5 Petitioner Xuehua Shen seeks review of a February 15, 6 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a May 23, 2016, decision 7 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Shen’s application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xuehua Shen, No. 10 A 098 603 482 (B.I.A. Feb. 15, 2017), aff’g No. A 098 603 482 11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 23, 2016). We assume the parties’ 12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 13 in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 16 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 17 the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and 18 its legal conclusions de novo. Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 19 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 20 Shen alleged a fear of persecution in China on account 21 of her political activities in the United States, 22 specifically her attendance at demonstrations and two 23 articles she posted on the internet. She had the burden of 2 1 proving a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her 2 political activism, which required her to establish ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals