Xiaojie v. Garland

20-1593 Xiaojie v. Garland BIA Segal, IJ A205 979 908 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 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 7th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JIANG XIAOJIE, AKA XIOJIE JIANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1593 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Esq., Sherman Oaks, 25 CA. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony C. 1 Payne, Assistant Director, Judith 2 R. O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, 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 Jiang Xiaojie, a native and citizen of the 11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 28, 2020, 12 decision of the BIA affirming a June 14, 2018, decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jiang Xiaojie, No. A205 979 16 908 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2020), aff’g No. A205 979 908 (Immig. 17 Ct. N.Y. City June 14, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 21 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 22 adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, 23 see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), 2 1 and we treat the agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive 2 unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 3 conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 4 While we apply a deferential standard of review to an 5 IJ’s credibility determination, “[w]e must assess whether the 6 agency has provided specific, cogent reasons for the adverse 7 credibility finding and whether …

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