Xie v. Barr

17-1131 Xie v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A205 897 893 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 May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GUOLIANG XIE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1131 17 NAC 18 William P. Barr, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Mary Jane 27 Candaux, Assistant Director; 28 Matthew Connelly, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 Guoliang Xie, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA’s June 7 10, 2016, decision, affirming a February 27, 2015, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Xie’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Guoliang Xie, No. 11 A 205 897 893 (B.I.A. June 10, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 897 893 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2015). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Because Xie appealed only the IJ’s initial decision 16 concerning past persecution to the BIA, our review is limited 17 to that issue. See Chupina v. Holder, 570 F.3d 99, 105 (2d 18 Cir. 2009) (explaining that petitioner may petition for review 19 directly from an IJ’s decision if challenge is to denial of 20 a form of relief previously appealed to the BIA, i.e., where 21 a claim was previously exhausted). Within that restriction, 2 1 we have reviewed both the IJ and BIA’s decisions. See Zaman 2 v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that, 3 where the BIA does not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision, the 4 court may consider both opinions “for ...

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