Xu v. Sessions

16-412 Xu v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 436 888 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 3rd day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 JIAYANG XU, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 16-412 16 NAC 17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Zhidong Wang, Wang, Leonard & 23 Condon, Chicago, Illinois. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy 27 Ferrier, Assistant Director; Tracie 28 N. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Jiayang Xu, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 19, 2016 decision 7 of the BIA affirming an August 1, 2014 decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Xu’s application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). See In re Jiayang Xu, No. A205 436 888 (B.I.A. Jan. 11 19, 2016), aff’g No. A205 436 888 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 1, 12 2014). Where, as here, the BIA does not expressly “adopt” the 13 IJ’s decision, but closely tracks its reasoning, we review both 14 the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 15 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 16 2006), applying well-established standards of review, see 8 17 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155, 158 18 (2d Cir. 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history of this case. 20 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 21 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of 22 future persecution, which is a “subjective fear that is 23 objectively reasonable.” Dong Zhong Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 2 1 277, 284 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals