Weng v. Sessions

16-3378 Weng v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A205 145 106 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 12th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MEI XIANG WENG, AKA, MEI CHUN 15 LI, AKA, WENG XIANG, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 16-3378 19 NAC 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Julie M. 29 Iversen, Senior Litigation 1 Counsel; Lynda A. Do, Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Mei Xiang Weng, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 8, 12 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a May 19, 2015, decision 13 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Weng’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mei Xiang Weng, 16 No. A 205 145 106 (B.I.A. Sept. 8, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 145 17 106 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 19, 2015). We assume the 18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 19 history in this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 21 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. Xue Hong Yang v. 22 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 23 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 2 1 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 2 165 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 3 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 4 I. Past Persecution 5 Weng alleged that a police officer chased her out of an 6 underground church gathering and threw a baton at her, ...

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