17-2306 Wang v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A205 440 440 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 19th day of November, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ HUAN WANG, Petitioner, v. 17-2306 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel; John B. Holt, 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. Petitioner Huan Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Wang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Huan Wang, No. A 205 440 440 (B.I.A. July 13, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 440 440 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 2016). Under the circumstances, we have reviewed “both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions for the sake of completeness,” Huo Qiang Chen v. Holder, 773 F.3d 396, 403 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), applying well-established standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and the application of law to undisputed facts de novo). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 2 facts and procedural history of this case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition. To establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, Wang had to show that she suffered past persecution, or had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13. It is undisputed that Wang did not allege past persecution, but only a fear of future persecution. A fear of future persecution must be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals