Xinshui v. Garland

21-6171 Xinshui v. Garland BIA Kolbe, IJ A208 418 047 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of September, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 LI XINSHUI, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. No. 21-6171-ag 15 16 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 17 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 18 Respondent. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 21 1 FOR PETITIONER: GARY J. YERMAN, New York, NY 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: DUNCAN T. FULTON, Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation (Mary Jane Candaux, 5 Assistant Director, on the brief), for Brian M. 6 Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 7 United States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Li Xinshui, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 14 China, seeks review of a March 2, 2021 decision of the BIA affirming an August 15 17, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ), which denied his application for 16 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 17 Torture (CAT). In re Li Xinshui, No. A208 418 047 (B.I.A. Mar. 2, 2021), aff’g No. 18 A208 418 047 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 17, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 In the circumstances of this case, where the BIA adopts the IJ's reasoning 21 and offers some additional commentary, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s 22 opinions. See, e.g., Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018); Yan Juan 23 Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 251 (2d Cir. 2011). “The testimony of the applicant 2 1 may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but 2 only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is 3 credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that 4 the applicant is a refugee. . . . Where the trier of fact determines that the 5 applicant should provide evidence that …

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