19-398 Zhao v. Wilkinson BIA Christensen, IJ A208 617 791 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SHOULONG ZHAO, Petitioner, v. 19-398 NAC ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, Karikari & Associates, P.C., New York, NY. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. FOR RESPONDENT: Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; William C. Minick, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. Petitioner Shoulong Zhao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 30, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a December 12, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shoulong Zhao, No. A208 617 791 (B.I.A. Jan. 30, 2019), aff’g No. A208 617 791 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 12, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). “We review the BIA's legal conclusions de novo, and its factual findings . . . under the substantial evidence standard.” Y.C. v. 2 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). I. Past Persecution While the Immigration and Nationality Act does not define persecution, the BIA has defined it as “a threat to the life or freedom of, or the infliction of suffering or harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as offensive.” Baba v. Holder, 569 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 222 (BIA 1985), overruled in part on other grounds ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals