17-4081 Zhou v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A208 618 203 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 5th day of February, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 YULING ZHOU, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-4081 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jenny 30 C. Lee, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Yuling Zhou, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 1, 10 2017 decision of the BIA affirming an April 3, 2017 decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yuling Zhou, No. 14 A208 618 203 (B.I.A. Dec. 1, 2017), aff’g No. A208 618 203 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 3, 2017). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 20 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 21 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 22 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 23 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 3 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 4 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal 5 consistency of each such ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals