16-1007 Zhang-Zhou v. Sessions BIA Cheng, IJ A205 338 164 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 11th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 PETER W. HALL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 XIE ZHANG-ZHOU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-1007 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Keith S. Barnett, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; Eric 28 W. Marsteller, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Scott M. Marconda, 30 Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 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 Xie Zhang-Zhou, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an October 27, 2014, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang-Zhou’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xie 11 Zhang-Zhou, No. A205 338 164 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2016), aff’g No. 12 A205 338 164 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 27, 2014). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 18 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 19 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 20 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 22 that the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 23 circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on an 2 1 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 2 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his or 3 his witness’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals