17-894 Yuan v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A205 033 736 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 13th day of March, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JIANG YUAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-894 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Vincent S. Wong, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 28 Sabatino F. Leo, 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 Jiang Yuan, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 28, 7 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a July 8, 2016 decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yuan’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jiang Yuan, No. A 11 205 033 736 (B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 033 736 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 8, 2016). 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 IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t 17 of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 18 adverse credibility determinations under a substantial 19 evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 20 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The 2 1 governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides as 2 follows: 3 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 4 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 5 credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, 6 or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the 7 consistency between the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals