Tao v. Sessions

16-3015 Tao v. Sessions BIA Laforest, IJ A087 601 002 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 23rd day of February, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LI TAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3015 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Nancy E. Friedman, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Sharon M. 28 Clay, 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Li Tao, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of an August 9, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA affirming an April 20, 2015, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Tao’s application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 10 Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Tao, No. A087 601 002 (B.I.A. Aug. 11 9, 2016), aff’g No. A087 601 002 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City April 12 20, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 15 IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 19 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 Because Tao alleged only a fear of future persecution on 21 account of her membership in the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) 22 in the United States, she had the burden to show a well-founded 23 fear of future persecution, which is a “subjective fear that 2 1 is objectively reasonable.” Dong Zhong Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 2 F.3d ...

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