Fang v. Garland

20-1527 Fang v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A088 347 494 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 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 8th day of November, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JIAN ZHOU FANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1527 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Robert Tsigler, Law Offices of 25 Robert Tsigler, PLLC, New York, 26 NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Cindy S. 3 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 4 Michelle Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 Civil Division, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Jian Zhou Fang, a native and citizen of the 14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 22, 2020, 15 decision of the BIA affirming a June 18, 2018, decision of an 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Zhou Fang, No. A 088- 19 347-494 (B.I.A. Apr. 22, 2020), aff’g No. A 088-347-494 (Immig. 20 Ct. N.Y.C. June 18, 2018). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 22 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s 23 and the BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 24 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse 25 credibility determinations under a substantial evidence 2 1 standard, see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 2 Cir. 2018), and treat the agency’s fact-finding as 3 “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 4 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the 6 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 7 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency 8 between the …

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