Filed: Dec. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 12-1275 Tang v. Whitaker BIA Elstein, IJ A088 006 843 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 N
Summary: 12-1275 Tang v. Whitaker BIA Elstein, IJ A088 006 843 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 NO..
More
12-1275
Tang v. Whitaker
BIA
Elstein, IJ
A088 006 843
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 18th day of December, two thousand
5 eighteen.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 JON O. NEWMAN,
9 DENNIS JACOBS,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 YAN FEI TANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 12-1275
18 NAC
19
20 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-
29 Kelting, Assistant Director; Lori
06152016-10
1 B. Warlick, Trial Attorney, Office
2 of Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, DC.
5
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 Yan Fei Tang, a native and citizen of the
11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2012,
12 BIA decision that affirmed the December 23, 2009, decision of
13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
15 (“CAT”). In re Yan Fei Tang, No. A088 006 843 (B.I.A. Mar.
16 8, 2012), aff’g No. A088 006 843 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec.
17 23, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
19 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s
20 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
22 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
23 established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138,
24 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 Tang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
2 relief, asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of
3 her children in the United States in violation of China’s
4 population control program. For largely the same reasons as
5 set forth in Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s
6 determination that she failed to satisfy her burden for
7 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See id. at
8 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d
9 Cir. 2006). The agency did not err in affording limited
10 weight to a family planning notice given that it was unsigned
11 and unauthenticated by any means and given country conditions
12 evidence that such documents are subject to widespread
13 fabrication. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471
14 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (providing that the weight
15 afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration
16 proceedings is largely within the agency’s discretion); Qin
17 Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d 143, 148-49 (2d Cir. 2007)
18 (concluding that the BIA does not abuse its discretion in
19 declining to credit an unauthenticated notice from a local
20 government office in China that contradicts country
21 conditions evidence and characterizes such a notice as
22 “questionable on its face”).
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
3 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
4 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
5 is DISMISSED as moot.
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
8 Clerk of Court
4
