16-4089 Wang v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A206 288 118 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 28th day of November, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZEDONG WANG, AKA CHENYANG WANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-4089 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Nataliya I. Gavlin, Gavlin & Associates, 24 P.C., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jonathan A. Robbins, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Tracey N. 29 McDonald, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 5 DENIED. 6 Petitioner Zedong Wang, a native and citizen of the 7 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 9, 2016 8 decision of the BIA affirming a February 17, 2016 decision of 9 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of 10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 11 (“CAT”). In re Zedong Wang, No. A206 288 118 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 12 2016), aff’g No. A206 288 118 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 17, 2016). 13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 14 and procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 17 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 20 196 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency did not err in finding that Wang 21 failed to satisfy his burden of proof as to his claim that the 22 Chinese police had discovered that he was proselytizing to his 23 grandparents in China through the internet and therefore that 2 1 he had an objectively reasonable ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals