Sun v. Sessions


16-1818 Sun v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 240 764 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 12th day of October , two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 BINGYAO SUN, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 16-1818 16 NAC 17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Hui Chen, Law Offices of Hui Chen & 23 Associates, P.C., Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, 27 Assistant Director; Margot L. 28 Carter, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Bingyao Sun, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 10, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a February 25, 2015, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Sun’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bingyao Sun, No. A205 240 764 11 (B.I.A. May 10, 2016), aff’g No. A205 240 764 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 12 City Feb. 25, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 15 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA (i.e., minus the adverse 16 credibility determination and alternative burden denial on 17 which the BIA declined to rely). See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 18 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 19 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 21 Cir. 2009). 22 2 1 An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must 2 establish that her past persecution or fear of future 3 persecution is on account of her race, religion, ...

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

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *