16-2509 Yuan v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 075 309 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 29th day of May, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MINGCHAI YUAN, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-2509 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Corey T. Lee, New York, NY. 26 27 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Drew C. Brinkman, Trial Attorney, 2 Jamie M. Dowd, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel, for Chad A. Readler, 4 Acting Assistant Attorney General, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Mingchai Yuan, a native and citizen of the 14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 22, 2016, 15 decision of the BIA affirming a January 22, 2015, decision of 16 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yuan’s application for 17 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mingchai Yuan, No. 19 A 205 075 309 (B.I.A. June 22, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 075 309 20 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 22, 2015). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 22 in this case. 23 We have reviewed the decisions of both the IJ and BIA. 24 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 1 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 3 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 4 Because Yuan was not harmed in the past, she had the 5 burden to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future 6 persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2); Dong Zhong Zheng 7 v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277, 284 (2d Cir. 2009); Ramsameachire 8 v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To meet this 9 standard, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals