16-2271 Ding v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 625 655 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 21st day of November, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FENGRONG DING, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2271 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius, 27 Assistant Director; Bernard A. 28 Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United 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 Fengrong Ding, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 10, 2016 7 decision of the BIA affirming a July 7, 2015 decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ding’s application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 10 Torture (“CAT”). In re Fengrong Ding, No. A 205 625 655 (B.I.A. 11 June 10, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 625 655 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 12 7, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed both the BIA and IJ’s decisions. See 15 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The 16 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 17 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 18 (2d Cir. 2008). 19 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 20 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on 21 inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s oral and written 22 statements and other record evidence. 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67. 2 “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 3 unless . . . it is plain that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals