19-3021 Xu v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A205 812 348 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 13th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 GUIDO CALABRESI, 11 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 HAI LIANG XU, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-3021 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony P. 1 Nicastro , Assistant Director; 2 Patricia E. Bruckner, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 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 Hai Liang Xu, a native and citizen of the 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 9, 13 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a February 2, 2018, 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hai Liang Xu, No. A 205 812 17 348 (B.I.A. Sept. 9, 2019), aff’g No. A 205 812 348 (Immig. 18 Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 2, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have considered the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 21 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 22 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 24 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings 2 1 for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo). 2 The agency reasonably concluded that Xu failed to 3 establish an objectively reasonable fear of future 4 persecution. Xu alleged a fear of persecution because he 5 began practicing Christianity while in the United States. 6 Accordingly, he had the burden to establish a “well-founded 7 fear of persecution.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals