Yang v. Whitaker

17-1706 Yang v. Whitaker BIA Nelson, IJ A200 177 805 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 28th day of December, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RENNA RAGGI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 FENG YANG, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 17-1706 16 NAC 17 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Mike P. Gao, Flushing, NY. 23 24 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 25 Assistant Attorney General; Paul 26 Fiorino, Senior Litigation 27 Counsel; Judith R. O’Sullivan, 28 Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 5 Petitioner Feng Yang, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 19, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a September 20, 2016, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yang’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Feng Yang, No. 11 A200 177 805 (B.I.A. May 19, 2017), aff’g No. A200 177 805 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 20, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 16 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 17 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam); 20 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 I. Asylum 22 An asylum applicant must “demonstrate[] by clear and 23 convincing evidence that the application has been filed 2 1 within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the 2 United States,” or “either the existence of changed 3 circumstances which materially affect ...

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