19-4295 Xiao Ting v. Garland BIA Lurye, IJ A206 077 055 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 1st day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ZHU XIAO TING, AKA XIAO TING 15 ZHUO, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-4295 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Mona Liza F. Lao, Esq., 26 New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 29 Assistant Attorney General; Greg 30 D. Mack, Senior Litigation 1 Counsel; Shahrzad Baghai, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Zhu Xiao Ting, a native and citizen of the 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 29, 13 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a February 28, 2018, 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ting’s 15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhu Xiao 17 Ting, No. A206 077 055 (B.I.A. Nov. 29. 2019), aff’g No. A206 18 077 055 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 28, 2018). We assume the 19 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 20 history. 21 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 22 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s findings 23 that the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 24 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 25 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are 2 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 3 compelled to conclude to the contrary.”). “[W]e review the 4 agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to 5 the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as 6 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals