16-4167 Rao v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A200 181 152 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 20th day of February, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AI HUA RAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-4167 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Briena L. 27 Strippoli, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Karen L. Melnik, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 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 Ai Hua Rao, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 28, 7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a January 13, 2016, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Rao’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ai Hua 11 Rao, No. A200 181 152 (B.I.A. Nov. 28, 2016), aff’g No. 12 A200 181 152 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 13, 2016). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 14 and procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 18 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards 19 of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 20 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 21 2008). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 22 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 2 1 credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or 2 responsiveness of the applicant or witness, . . . the 3 consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written 4 and oral statements . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals