14-2402 Xia v. Whitaker BIA Sichel, IJ A088 524 649 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 December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 DENNIS JACOBS, 10 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JIANDONG XIA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 14-2402 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 28 Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant 29 Director; Michael C. Heyse, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 06152016-10 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Jiandong Xia, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 4, 2014, 11 BIA decision that affirmed the August 24, 2012, decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Jiandong Xia, No. A088 524 649 (B.I.A. June 15 4, 2014), aff’g No. A088 524 649 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 16 24, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s 19 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 21 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 22 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 23 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). 24 Xia applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 2 07102018-2 1 relief, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of 2 his children in the United States in violation of China’s 3 population control program. As an initial matter, contrary 4 to Xia’s contention, the agency applied the correct standard 5 of review when considering his application. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals