Wu v. Sessions , 690 F. App'x 777 ( 2017 )

14-2228
Wu v. Sessions
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A200 941 349
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 23rd day of May, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 RONG JING WU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2228
17 NAC
18
19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,*
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24
* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Jefferson B. Sessions, III, is automatically substituted for
former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as the Respondent in this
case.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael
2 Brown, P.C., New York, NY.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
5 Assistant Attorney General; Russell
6 J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation
7 Counsel; John D. Williams, Trial
8 Attorney, Office of Immigration
9 Litigation, United States
10 Department of Justice, Washington,
11 DC.
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
15 DENIED.
16 Petitioner Rong Jing Wu, a native and citizen of the
17 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 2, 2014
18 decision of the BIA affirming a September 10, 2012 decision of
19 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wu’s application for
20 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
21 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rong Jing Wu, No. A200 941 349
22 (B.I.A. June 2, 2014), aff’g No. A200 941 349 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C.
23 Sept. 10, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
24 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
25 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s
26 opinion, “including the portions not explicitly discussed by
2
1 the BIA.” Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.
2 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
3 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
4 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
5 We have held that although remand may be “required because
6 of [an] IJ’s apparent bias and hostility toward” a petitioner,
7 such cases are “rare.” Guo-Le Huang v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 142,
8 148 (2d Cir. 2006). Wu argues that this is one of those rare
9 cases.
10 Wu’s argument is based on the fact that, of the several
11 inconsistencies identified by the IJ, the major one was elicited
12 by the IJ’s own questioning, rather than that of the government
13 attorney. Wu asks us to infer from this fact that the IJ was
14 biased. We decline to do so. The IJ was complying with his
15 statutory obligation to “interrogate, examine, and
16 cross-examine.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1). Moreover, an IJ may
17 rely on dramatic inconsistencies without seeking explanation.
18 Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2006). According
19 an applicant an opportunity to rehabilitate inconsistent
20 testimony therefore does not violate due process. Beyond the
21 inference that she asks us to draw, Wu has identified no comments
3
1 or questions by the IJ that raise even a slight suggestion of
2 bias. Cf. Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478, 490-93 (2d Cir. 2008);
3 Guo-Le Huang, 453 F.3d at 149. Accordingly, the IJ did not
4 violate Wu’s due process rights, and there is no cause for
5 remand.
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition
8 is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
9 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4