Han v. Whitaker

17-1473 Han v. Whitaker BIA Rohan, IJ A205 813 593 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 nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YONGHUAN HAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1473 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Louis H. Klein, The Kasen Law 24 Firm, PLLC, Flushing, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Linda S. 28 Wernery, Assistant Director; 29 Gerald M. Alexander, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 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 Yonghuan Han, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 10, 2017 7 decision of the BIA affirming a September 1, 2016, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Han’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yonghuan Han, No. 11 A 205 813 593 (B.I.A. Apr. 10, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 813 593 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 1, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse 18 credibility determinations under a substantial evidence 19 standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 20 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The governing 21 REAL ID Act credibility standard provides as follows: 2 1 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 2 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 3 credibility determination on . . . the consistency 4 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and 5 oral statements ...

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