Yu v. Sessions

16-3780-ag Yu v. Sessions BIA Maury, IJ A205 407 815 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of May, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- YAN QING YU, AKA YAN QUIN YU Petitioner, v. No. 16-3780-ag JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- APPEARING FOR PETITIONER: JOSHUA BARDAVID, New York, New York. APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT: VANESSA M. OTERO, Trial Attorney (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, on the * Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioner Yan Qing Yu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of Yu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Yan Qing Yu, No. A205 407 815 (B.I.A. Oct. 14, 2016), aff’g No. A205 407 815 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 26, 2015). Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence, see Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013), under which standard “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. To obtain asylum, Yu was required to demonstrate past persecution or a well- founded fear of future persecution on account of her religion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Although Yu could have carried her burden through her testimony alone, where, as here, “the trier of fact determines that the applicant should ...

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