Yang v. Sessions

16-1690 Yang v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 628 745 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 5th day of October, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DECHANG YANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1690 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Aminat Sabak, Law Offices of Yu and 24 Associates, PLLC, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy, 27 Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. 28 Wernery, Assistant Director; Kerry A. 29 Monaco, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board 5 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, 6 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Dechang Yang, a native and citizen of the 8 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 29, 2016, 9 decision of the BIA, affirming a January 7, 2015, decision of 10 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yang’s application for 11 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 12 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dechang Yang, No. A205 628 745 13 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A205 628 745 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 14 City Jan. 7, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 17 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 18 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are 19 well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 20 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 21 For asylum applications like Yang’s, governed by the REAL 22 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 23 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies 2 1 in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record evidence 2 “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies go “to the 3 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 ...

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