17-1828 Tan v. Barr BIA Bukszpan, IJ A205 886 707 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 29th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HAI TAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1828 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jim Li, Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Kiley Kane, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Ann M. 28 Welhaf, 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Hai Tan, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 15, 2017, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a September 19, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Hai Tan, No. A205 886 707 (B.I.A. May 15, 11 2017), aff’g No. A205 886 707 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 19, 12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 15 BIA, which did not consider the IJ’s findings regarding Tan’s 16 U.S. visa. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 17 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 18 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 19 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 22 determination on . . . the inherent plausibility of the 2 1 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the 2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 3 the internal ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals