17-3881 Xia v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A205 442 888 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 18th day of October, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HAIFENG XIA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3881 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., 27 Deputy Director; Nancy N. Safavi, 28 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation, United States Department 30 of Justice, 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 Haifeng Xia, a native and citizen of China, 6 seeks review of a November 7, 2017, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a December 12, 2016, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and withholding of removal. In 9 re Haifeng Xia, No. A205 442 888 (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2017), aff’g 10 No. A205 442 888 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 12, 2016). We 11 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 12 procedural history in this case. 13 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 14 BIA, i.e., minus the adverse credibility determination that 15 the BIA declined to consider. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 16 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 19 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 Xia became a Christian while in the United States 21 and alleged a fear of persecution in China because he would 22 continue to practice Christianity if removed. Absent past 2 1 persecution, an alien may establish eligibility for asylum by 2 demonstrating “that he has a well-founded fear of future 3 persecution, which requires that the alien present credible 4 testimony that he subjectively fears ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals