Xie v. Garland

20-2216 Xie v. Garland BIA Bither, IJ A206 582 110 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of January, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ CHUN XIE, Petitioner, v. 20-2216 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jim Li, Esq., Flushing, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Chun Xie, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 25, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an April 16, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chun Xie, No. A206-582-110 (B.I.A. June 25, 2020), aff’g No. A206-582-110 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the adverse credibility determination that the BIA did not reach. See Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless 2 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary[.]”); Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo). To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, an applicant must establish past persecution or a well-founded fear or likelihood of future persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b). In order to establish persecution on account of political opinion, “[t]he applicat[ion] must . . . show, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecutor’s motive to persecute arises from …

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