Sun v. Barr

17-2800 Sun v. Barr BIA Leeds, IJ A205 240 400 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 13th day of August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 XIAOQIAN SUN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2800 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Wei Gu, Albertson, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 27 Assistant Director; Matthew A. 28 Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, 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 Xiaoqian Sun, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 16, 7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a February 3, 2017, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Sun’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiaoqian 11 Sun, No. A 205 240 400 (B.I.A. Aug. 16, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 12 240 400 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 3, 2017). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 17 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 18 adverse credibility determinations under a substantial 19 evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 20 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). The 21 governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides as 2 1 follows: 2 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 3 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 4 credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, 5 or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the 6 inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or 7 witness’s account, the ...

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