19-3849 Zhong v. Garland BIA Cheng, IJ A200 919 261 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 5th day of January, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WEI JUN ZHONG, AKA XIAO JUN 14 ZHONG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3849 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Aleksander Boleslaw Milch, Esq., 25 The Kasen Law Firm, PLLC, 26 Flushing, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 29 Assistant Attorney General; Song 1 Park, Acting Assistant Director; 2 Virginia L. Gordon, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Wei Jun Zhong, a native and citizen of the 13 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 21, 14 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a February 27, 2018, 15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) terminating Zhong’s 16 asylee status and ordering removal. In re Wei Jun Zhong, No. 17 A200 919 261 (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2019), aff’g No. A200 919 261 18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 22 Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s findings of fact for 23 substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. See Lecaj 24 v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). 25 “Asylum . . . does not convey a right to remain 26 permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if 2 1 the [agency] determines that . . . the alien no longer meets 2 the conditions [for asylum] . . . owing to a fundamental 3 change in circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(2). “An [IJ] 4 or the [BIA] …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals