Tong v. Sessions

16-2177 Tong v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A205 240 661/662 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of January, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DONGMEI TONG, ZHAOYUE SUN, Petitioners, v. 16-2177 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Louis H. Klein, Flushing, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Michael C. Heyse, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioners Dongmei Tong and Zhaoyue Sun, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of a June 7, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a March 13, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Tong’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Dongmei Tong, Zhaoyue Sun, No. A205 240 661/662, (B.I.A. June 7, 2016), aff’g No. A205 240 661/662 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 13, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). The standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 1 Sun sought asylum only as Tong’s derivative beneficiary, and did not seek withholding of removal or CAT relief in his own right. 2 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s testimony, application, and other record evidence, regardless of whether any such discrepancies “go[] to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67 & n.2. “An applicant’s failure to corroborate . . . her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already ...

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