16-3758 Tang v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A200 168 577 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 17th day of September, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 YING TANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3758 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 27 Assistant Director; Kevin J. 28 Conway, 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Ying Tang, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a BIA decision 7 affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Tang’s 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ying 10 Tang, No. A200 168 577 (B.I.A. Oct. 7, 2016), aff’g No. A200 11 168 577 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 20, 2015). Under the 12 circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the 13 BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness,” Wangchuck v. 14 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006), and 15 address only the adverse credibility determination, applying 16 well-established standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. 17 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 18 66 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing adverse credibility 19 determination for substantial evidence). In doing so, we 20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 21 procedural history in this case. 2 1 For applications such as Tang’s, governed by the REAL ID 2 Act of 2005, the agency may, “considering the totality of the 3 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an applicant’s 4 “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” as well as 5 inconsistencies in her statements and other record evidence 6 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals