19-1613 Xing v. Rosen BIA Conroy, IJ A206 230 159 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 22nd day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LIANG JIA XING, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-1613 18 NAC 19 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, Esq., New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Claire 29 L. Workman, Senior Litigation 30 Counsel; Edward C. Durant, 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 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 Liang Jia Xing, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 1, 2019, 12 decision of the BIA affirming a January 5, 2018, decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Xing’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Liang Jia Xing, 16 No. A206 230 159 (B.I.A. May 1, 2019), aff’g No. A206 230 159 17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 5, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 20 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 22 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 24 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 25 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 1 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 3 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 4 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the 5 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals