18-3353 Wei v. Wilkinson BIA Hom, IJ A205 182 341 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 18th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FENGYING WEI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3353 17 NAC 18 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR PETITIONER: Jed S. Wasserman, Esq., New York, 2 NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 5 Assistant Attorney General; 6 Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 7 Director; Ilana J. Snyder, Trial 8 Attorney, Office of Immigration 9 Litigation, United States 10 Department of Justice, Washington, 11 DC. 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 15 is DENIED. 16 Petitioner Fengying Wei, a native and citizen of the 17 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 4, 18 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a September 20, 2017, 19 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wei’s 20 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 21 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Fengying 22 Wei, No. A 205 182 341 (B.I.A. Oct. 4, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 23 182 341 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 20, 2017). We assume the 24 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 25 history. 26 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 27 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 2 1 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. 2 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 3 Because the BIA assumed Wei’s credibility, so do we. Yan 4 Chen, 417 F.3d at 271–72. The standards of review are well 5 established. See Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d 6 Cir. 2009). 7 An IJ may require an asylum applicant to provide ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals