Baba v. Sessions

16-278 Baba v. Sessions BIA Nelson, IJ A200 172 505 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 10th day of August, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOHAMED BOUH BABA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-278 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Z. Goldman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General, Civil Division; 27 Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Brett F. Kinney, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Mohamed Bouh Baba, a native and citizen of 6 Mauritania, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an 7 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Baba’s application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed Bouh Baba, 10 No. A200 172 505 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2015), aff’g No. A200 172 11 505 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2014). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 13 history in this case. 14 We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, 15 see Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), 16 deferring the IJ’s adverse credibility determinations unless 17 circumstances make plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 18 have made such a determination, see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 19 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). “[I]f the agency’s reasoning or its 20 fact-finding process was sufficiently flawed,” Bah v. 21 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008), we will remand 22 unless doing so is futile because we can “confidently predict” 2 1 that the agency would reach the same result absent any errors, 2 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 339 (2d 3 Cir. 2006). Errors in the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals