Sun v. Garland

20-1567 Sun v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A205 192 825 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 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 10th day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 YONGCHENG SUN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1567 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Ernesto H. 1 Molina, Jr., Deputy Director; 2 Nancy N. Safavi, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, DC. 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 in part and GRANTED in part. 10 Petitioner Yongcheng Sun, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 1, 2020 12 decision of the BIA affirming a July 16, 2018 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 Yongcheng Sun, No. A 205 192 16 825 (B.I.A. May 1, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 192 825 (Immig. Ct. 17 N.Y.C. July 16, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 20 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 21 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well 22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the 23 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 24 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 1 contrary”); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) 2 (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and 3 questions of law de novo). We deny the petition as to asylum 4 and withholding of removal, but remand for further 5 consideration or explanation of Sun’s CAT claim. 6 …

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