19-11 Xu v. Wilkinson BIA Cohen, IJ A206 583 107 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 25th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HONGFANG XU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-11 17 NAC 18 MONTY WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jed S. Wasserman, Esq., New York, 24 NY. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 2 Assistant Attorney General; 3 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 4 Director; Liza S. Murcia, Senior 5 Litigation Counsel; Kathleen Kelly 6 Volkert, Trial Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, United 8 States Department of Justice, 9 Washington, DC. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Hongfang Xu, a native and citizen of the 15 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 7, 16 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a November 3, 2017, 17 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying Xu’s 18 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 19 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 20 re Hongfang Xu, No. A 206 583 107 (B.I.A. Dec. 7, 2018), aff’g 21 No. A 206 583 107 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 3, 2017). We 22 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 23 procedural history. 24 We have reviewed the BIA’s decision, which in turn upheld 25 a number of the IJ’s factual findings as not clearly 26 erroneous. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 2 1 Cir. 2005). The BIA denied relief based solely on Xu’s 2 failure to show a nexus to a protected ground or that she 3 would more likely than not be tortured. We address only those 4 dispositive determinations and do not address Yang’s 5 arguments regarding the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals