Wei Wang v. Gonzales

Second Circuit

Wei Wang v. Gonzales

144 F. App'x 918

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 2005

DocketDocket No. 03-40917

StatusPublished

This text of 144 F. App'x 918 (Wei Wang v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wei Wang v. Gonzales, 144 F. App'x 918 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED.

[919]*919Wei Wang (‘Wang”) petitions for review of a October 20, 2003 order of the BIA that affirmed a February 8, 2002 order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case, its relevant procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

Wang argues that there was not substantial evidence to support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. We disagree. We have considered Wang’s remaining arguments, and reject them. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED.

[919]*919Wei Wang (‘Wang”) petitions for review of a October 20, 2003 order of the BIA that affirmed a February 8, 2002 order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case, its relevant procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

Wang argues that there was not substantial evidence to support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. We disagree. We have considered Wang’s remaining arguments, and reject them. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. App'x 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wei-wang-v-gonzales-ca2-2005.