16-4251 Xiong v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A088 440 357 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 20th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZHENBO XIONG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-4251 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony C. 27 Payne, Assistant Director; 28 Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 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 Zhenbo Xiong, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 29, 7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an October 29, 2015, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhenbo Xiong, No. A088 440 11 357 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A088 440 357 (Immig. 12 Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 29, 2015). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 17 adverse credibility determination that the BIA rejected. 18 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 19 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Furthermore, we do not review Xiong’s 20 claim of past persecution under China’s family planning 21 policy because he has not addressed it in his brief. See 22 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 23 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the only issue before us is 2 1 Xiong’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of 2 persecution in China on account of his practice of 3 Christianity. The applicable ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals