Weng v. Whitaker

16-4256 Weng v. Whitaker BIA Loprest, IJ A205 907 154 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 28th day of December, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LING FENG WENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-4256 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Carl Mcintyre, 27 Assistant Director; Margaret A. 28 O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Ling Feng Weng, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 2, 7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a January 27, 2016, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Weng’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ling 11 Feng Weng, No. A 205 907 154 (B.I.A. Dec. 2, 2016), aff’g No. 12 A 205 907 154 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 27, 2016). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 16 BIA’s and IJ’s decisions, but we do not reach the IJ’s 17 alternative burden finding because the BIA did not rely on 18 it. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 19 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 20 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are 21 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 22 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). In making 2 1 a credibility determination, the agency must “[c]onsider[] 2 the totality of the circumstances” and may base its 3 determination on the ...

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