17-1425 Ye v. Barr BIA Cheng, IJ A206 061 653 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 June, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YANJUN YE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1425 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Kiley Kane, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Lynda 28 A. Do, 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 GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Yanjun Ye, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 13, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an October 5, 2015, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ye’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yanjun Ye, No. A 11 206 061 653 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 061 653 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 5, 2015). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 17 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of 18 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 19 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). In 20 making a credibility determination, the agency must 21 “[c]onsider[] the totality of the circumstances” and may base 2 1 a finding on the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or 2 responsiveness, . . . the inherent plausibility of the 3 applicant’s . . . account,” inconsistencies in the 4 applicant’s statements or between her statements and other 5 evidence or witness statements, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals