Zhang v. Sessions

16-2740 Zhang v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 059 867 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 20th day of December, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TAO ZHANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2740 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 27 Assistant Director; Tracie N. Jones, 28 Trial 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Tao Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s 6 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 22, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA, affirming a December 8, 2014, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tao Zhang, No. A206 059 867 11 (B.I.A. July 22, 2016), aff’g No. A206 059 867 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 12 City Dec. 8, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s adverse 15 credibility determination and adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we 16 review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 18 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s adverse 19 credibility determination for substantial evidence. See Xiu 20 Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir. 2008); see also 21 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 22 For asylum applications like Zhang’s, governed by the REAL 23 ID Act, the IJ “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in 2 1 making an adverse credibility determination, as long as the 2 ‘totality of the circumstances’ ...

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