Bunjaj v. Barr

17-2184 Bunjaj v. Barr BIA Hochul, IJ A206 252 508 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 13th day of August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALEKSANDER BUNJAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2184 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Aleksander Bunjaj, pro se, Bronx, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 28 Assistant Director; Andrea N. 29 Gevas, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, 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 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Aleksander Bunjaj, a native and citizen of 6 Albania, seeks review of a June 14, 2017, decision of the BIA 7 affirming an August 4, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Aleksander Bunjaj, No. A206 252 508 (B.I.A. June 14, 2017), 11 aff’g No. A206 252 508 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4, 2016). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 16 adverse credibility determination that the BIA declined to 17 reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 18 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 19 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin 20 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 The agency did not err in concluding that Bunjaj failed 22 to satisfy his burden of proof for asylum, withholding of 2 1 removal, and CAT relief. He claimed that supporters of a 2 local Socialist Party politician shot guns in the air outside 3 his home ...

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