Yuan v. Garland

20-2907 Yuan v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A209 163 956 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 21st day of October, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JIAN DI YUAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2907 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, Esq., New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony P. 1 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 2 Sherease Pratt, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Jian Di Yuan, a native and citizen of The 12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 4, 2020 13 decision of the BIA affirming a June 20, 2018 decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Di Yuan, No. A 209 163 17 956 (B.I.A. Aug. 4, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 163 956 (Immig. Ct. 18 N.Y.C. June 20, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 19 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 As an initial matter, we find no merit in Yuan’s due 21 process arguments that the IJ’s decision lacks sufficient 22 reasoning and that the BIA exhibited bias by warning in its 23 written decision that an individual who fails to depart after 24 an order of removal will incur a fine. To establish a due 2 1 process violation, the noncitizen must show that he was 2 denied the opportunity to be heard “in a meaningful 3 manner,” Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) 4 (quotation marks omitted), and that the “alleged shortcomings 5 have prejudiced the outcome of his case,” Garcia-Villeda v. 6 Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d …

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