17-1268 Yang v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A098 646 344 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 10th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHUANDENG YANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1268 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Doen Zheng, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Terri J. 27 Scadron, Assistant Director; 28 Margot L. Carter, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Chuandeng Yang, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 30, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a July 11, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yang’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chuandeng Yang, 11 No. A 098 646 344 (B.I.A. Mar. 30, 2017), aff’g No. A 098 646 12 344 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 11, 2016). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history in this case. 15 Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility 16 ruling, we consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions on 17 credibility “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. 18 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). 19 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 21 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility 2 1 determination under a substantial evidence standard). 2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 3 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 4 determination on . . . the inherent plausibility of the 5 applicant’s or witness’s account, the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals