Lu v. Garland

19-2484 Lu v. Garland BIA Hom, IJ A087 859 905 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 14th day of October, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WENXIN LU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2484 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, Esq., New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Cindy S. 28 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 29 Surell Brady, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Wenxin Lu, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 15, 2019, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a January 26, 2018, decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Wenxin Lu, No. A087 859 905 (B.I.A. July 15, 15 2019), aff’g No. A087 859 905 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 26, 16 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 19 BIA, i.e., minus the timeliness and adverse credibility 20 determinations that the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang 21 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 22 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 24 27 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 1 The agency did not err in finding that Lu failed to 2 adequately corroborate his claim that police detained and 3 beat him in China on account of his religious practice. “The 4 testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the 5 applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the …

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