19-4108 Zhang v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 569 641 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 10th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YUJIE ZHANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-4108 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Stephen M. De Luca, Esq., Jersey 24 City, NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffery B. Clark, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jonathan 1 The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 Robbins, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; Timothy Bo Stanton, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Yujie Zhang, a native and citizen of the 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 12, 13 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a March 16, 2018, decision 14 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re Yujie Zhang, No. A 206 15 569 641 (B.I.A. Nov. 12, 2019), aff’g No. A 206 569 641 16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 16, 2018). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 19 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20 Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We 21 review adverse credibility determinations under the 22 substantial evidence standard and treat the agency’s findings 23 of fact as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 24 would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 2 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 5 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals