16-912 Shi v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A205 826 082 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 1st day of February, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YUMEI SHI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-912 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon; Deborah 24 Niedermeyer, Of Counsel, On the 25 Brief, Law Office of Yee Ling 26 Poon, LLC, New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 29 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 30 Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 06152016-10 1 Director; Wendy Benner-León, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Yumei Shi, a native and citizen of the 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 29, 13 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the October 16, 2014, 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yumei Shi, No. A205 826 082 17 (B.I.A. Feb. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A205 826 082 (Immig. Ct. 18 N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity 19 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 20 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 21 decision as modified by the BIA’s decision, i.e., minus the 22 CAT claim the BIA found waived. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 23 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 24 applicable standards of review are well established. See 25 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 07102018-7 1 Shi applied for asylum and withholding of removal, 2 asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of her 3 three children in China and one child in the United States in 4 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals