Xing v. Whitaker

17-1143 Xing v. Whitaker BIA Hom, IJ A205 083 157 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 11th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 LI LONG XING, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 17-1143 16 NAC 17 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Jan Potemkin, New York, NY. 23 24 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 25 Assistant Attorney General; Holly 26 M. Smith, Senior Litigation 27 Counsel; Nehal H. Kamani, Trial 28 Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation, United States 30 Department of Justice, Washington, 31 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 GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Li Long Xing, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 5, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an October 27, 2015, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Xing’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Long Xing, No. 11 A 205 083 157 (B.I.A. Apr. 5, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 083 157 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 27, 2015). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 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 the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual 19 findings under the substantial evidence standard. Y.C. v. 20 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1252(a)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are 2 1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary.”). 3 Xing had the burden of establishing a well-founded fear 4 of persecution on account of his practice of Christianity. 5 8 U.S.C. ...

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