Song v. Sessions


17-1709 Song v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A206 572 002 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 10th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FANGJIAN SONG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1709 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Hui Chen, Law Offices of Hui 24 Chen Associates, P.C., 25 Flushing, NY. 26 27 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Jeffery R. 3 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Abigail E. Leach, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 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 Fangjian Song, a native and citizen of the 14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 28, 15 2017, decision of the BIA affirming an August 31, 2016, 16 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Song’s 17 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 18 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 19 Fangjian Song, No. A206 572 002 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2017), 20 aff’g No. A206 572 002 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 31, 21 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 22 underlying facts and procedural history. 23 Given the circumstances of this case, we have 24 “review[ed] the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., 25 minus the bases for denying relief that the BIA expressly 26 declined to consider.” Flores v. Holder, 779 F.3d 159, 163 2 1 (2d Cir. 2015). The applicable standards of review are 2 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia 3 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 4 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 5 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 6 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 7 or witness’s written and oral statements ...

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