Xu v. Rosen

18-3808 Xu v. Rosen BIA Donnolo, IJ A206 432 281 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 13th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHUANXIONG XU, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3808 17 NAC 18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo Idowu, Esq., Law Offices 24 of Adedayo O Idowu, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; Nancy 28 Friedman , Senior Litigation 1 Counsel; Kevin J. Conway, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Chuanxiong Xu, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 29, 12 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a November 28, 2017, 13 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chuanxiong Xu, No. A 206 432 16 281 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 432 281 (Immig. 17 Ct. New York City Nov. 28, 2017). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 19 in this case. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and 21 supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 22 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 23 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 24 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence 3 and questions of law de novo). 4 An asylum applicant must show that he has suffered past 5 persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future 6 persecution, on account of ...

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