17-1299 Wei Zhang v. Barr BIA Zagzoug, IJ A205 883 110 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 25th day of April, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ WEI ZHANG, Petitioner, v. 17-1299 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Louis H. Klein, The Kasen Law Firm, PLLC, Flushing, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Janette L. Allen, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jessica D. Strokus, 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 Wei Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 4, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a September 1, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wei Zhang, No. A 205 883 110 (B.I.A. Apr. 4, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 883 110 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sep. 1, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility ruling, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard. See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). Under this standard, “[w]e treat factual findings as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable 2 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides as follows: Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals