18-2629 Xue v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A201 188 080 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 4th day of November, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MEIQIN XUE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2629 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Ramesh Kumar Shrestha, New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Brianne W. 29 Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 1 Andrea N. Gevas, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, 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 Meiqin Xue, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 9, 2018, 12 decision of the BIA affirming an August 8, 2017, decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Meiqin Xue, No. 16 A201 188 080 (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 2018), aff’g No. A201 188 080 17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 8, 2017). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 19 in this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 21 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 22 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 23 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 24 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 25 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 3 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 4 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 5 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the 6 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals