17-1034 Xue v. Whitaker BIA Vomacka, IJ A087 604 890 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 19th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 DONGSHENG XUE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-1034 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 20 ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 21 GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Dongsheng Xue, pro se, Las Vegas, 26 NV. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Linda S. 30 Wernery, Assistant Director; 31 Brendan Moore, Trial Attorney, 32 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Dongsheng Xue, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 14, 2017, 10 decision of the BIA affirming a July 20, 2016, decision of an 11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Xue’s application for asylum 12 and withholding of removal. In re Dongsheng Xue, No. A 087 13 604 890 (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 604 890 14 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 20, 2016). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 16 in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for the sake of 19 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 20 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well 21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Kyaw Zwar Tun v. 22 U.S. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 562–63 (2d Cir. 2006). 23 In the absence of past persecution, Xue had the burden 24 of proving a well-founded fear of persecution on account of 2 1 his practice of Falun Gong or his violation of the family 2 planning policy. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 3 To do this, he was required to show that he subjectively fears ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals