Ren v. Garland


20-3384 Ren v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A206 562 605 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 27th day of June, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YABIN REN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3384 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Wei Gu, Esq., Albertson, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jessica E. 27 Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Scott M. Marconda, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Yabin Ren, a native and citizen of the 9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 4, 10 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a July 31, 2018, decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ren’s application for 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yabin Ren, No. A 14 206 562 605 (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 2020), aff’g No. A 206 562 605 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jul. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 18 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 19 Cir. 2005). We review adverse credibility determinations 20 under a substantial evidence standard, Hong Fei Gao v. 21 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the 22 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 23 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 1 contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 3 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 4 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 5 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the 6 applicant's or witness's written …

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