Case Information
*1 12-1196 Xue v. Holder
BIA Laforest, IJ A087 446 589 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 16 th day of September, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT D. SACK,
PETER W. HALL,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges .
_____________________________________
AIQIN XUE,
Petitioner , v. 12-1196 NAC ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent .
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Zhong Yue Zhang, New York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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.
Aiqin Xue, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 16, 2012, decision of the BIA (1) affirming the July 14, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, which denied her application for asylum and granted withholding of removal; and (2) remanding the proceedings to the IJ. In re Aiqin Xue , No. A087 446 589 (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 2012), aff’g No. A087 446 589 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 14, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.
See Yan
Chen v. Gonzales
,
§ 1252(b)(4)(D);
Wu Zheng Huang v. INS
,
The agency’s decision to deny asylum as a matter of
discretion to someone who falls within the definition of
refugee requires an analysis of the “totality of the
circumstances,” in which adverse factors are balanced
against favorable ones.
Wu Zheng Huang
,
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (identifying inconsistencies as a valid
*4
basis for an adverse credibility determination). Moreover,
the IJ reasonably declined to credit Xue’s explanation for
the inconsistency: that a friend prepared her visa
application for her, she was not aware of its contents, and
she signed it without reading it.
See Majidi v. Gonzales
,
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
Xiu Xia Lin
,
The IJ then concluded that Xue did not merit a positive exercise of discretion given her fraudulent visa application and her incredible testimony with regard to that application. Although the IJ did not weigh Xue’s positive equities against these negative factors, upon de novo review, the BIA, after affirming the IJ’s finding that Xue engaged in “fraudulent conduct,” did consider both positive and negative equities, and affirmed the discretionary denial of asylum based on a totality of the circumstances.
Because, as set forth below, the BIA sufficiently weighed
the equities and provided a reasoned explanation, we find no
*5
abuse of discretion.
See Wu Zheng Huang
,
The BIA considered the positive factors — that absent a
grant of asylum, there was no reasonable way for Xue to
reunite with her family; Xue has no criminal or terrorist
history; and there was a danger she would be persecuted in
China.
See Kong Min Jian v. INS
,
4 DENIED. 5
6 FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7