17-842 Shijie Lin v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A208 154 298 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 8th day of June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHIJIE LIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-842 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jonathan A. 28 Robbins, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Tracey N. McDonald, Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Shijie Lin, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2017, 12 decision of the BIA affirming a July 5, 2016, decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin Shijie, No. A 208 154 298 16 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2017), aff’g No. A 208 154 298 (Immig. Ct. 17 N.Y. City July 5, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 both the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s decision “for the sake 21 of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 22 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are 2 1 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 2 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 4 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on 5 inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s oral and 6 written statements and other record evidence, regardless of 7 whether any such discrepancies “go[] to the heart of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals