Li-Zhen v. Garland

20-3446 Li-Zhen v. Garland BIA Parchert, IJ A087 455 715 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 9th day of September, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LI-ZHEN OU YANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3446 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. * 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Yevgeny Samokhleb, Esq., New 25 York, NY. * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 3 Attorney General; Julie M. 4 Iversen, Senior Litigation 5 Counsel; Jessica R. Lesnau, Trial 6 Attorney, Office of Immigration 7 Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, 9 DC. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Li-Zhen Ou Yang, a native and citizen of the 15 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 11, 16 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a May 21, 2018 decision of 17 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 18 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 19 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ou Yang Li-Zhen, 20 No. A 087 455 715 (B.I.A. Sept. 11, 2020), aff’g No. A 087 455 21 715 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. May 21, 2018). We assume the parties’ 22 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 23 In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for 24 summary denial of Ou Yang’s petition for review. Summary 25 denial is “a rare exception to the completion of the appeal 26 process” and is available only if an appeal is “truly 2 1 ‘frivolous.’” United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13 (2d 2 Cir. 2010)(citation omitted). A claim is frivolous if it is 3 based on an “inarguable legal conclusion” or “fanciful 4 factual allegation.” Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 5 1995); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329 (1989) …

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