Islam v. Whitaker

17-2639 Islam v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A206 263 716 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 8th day of February, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NAZRUL ISLAM, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2639 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Salim Sheikh, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 27 Kelting, Assistant Director; Jacob 28 A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 Nazrul Islam, a native and citizen of 6 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 25, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA affirming an October 4, 2016, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Nazrul Islam, No. A 206 263 716 (B.I.A. July 11 25, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 263 716 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 12 4, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 16 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse 17 credibility determinations under a substantial evidence 18 standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 19 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). The governing REAL 20 ID Act credibility standard provides as follows: 21 2 1 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 2 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 3 credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, 4 or responsiveness of the applicant or witness,. . . 5 the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s 6 written and oral statements ...

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