18-1726 Abdur v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A206 271 630 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 14th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RAHIM ABDUR, AKA ABDUR RAHIM, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1726 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.* 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., 25 New York, NY. 26 * Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Russell J. E. Verby, 3 Senior Litigation Counsel; John D. 4 Williams, Trial Attorney, Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Rahim Abdur, a native and citizen of 13 Bangladesh, seeks review of a May 9, 2018 decision of the BIA 14 affirming a June 6, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge 15 (“IJ”) denying Abdur’s application for asylum, withholding of 16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 17 (“CAT”). In re Rahim Abdur, No. A 206 271 630 (B.I.A. May 9, 18 2018), aff’g No. A 206 271 630 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 6, 19 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 22 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 23 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 24 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. 25 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 2 1 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination 2 under a substantial evidence standard). The trier of fact 3 may base its credibility determination on, among other 4 things, “the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s 5 written and oral statements . . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals