Kamilova v. Barr

17-4012 Kamilova v. Barr BIA Leeds, IJ A205 444 888 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 August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AMIRA TEMIROVNA KAMILOVA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-4012 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.* 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Mundy, Nicholas J. 24 Mundy, Esq., PLLC, Brooklyn, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Briena L. 28 Strippoli, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Deitz P. Lefort, Trial * The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to conform the case caption to the above. 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Amira Temirovna Kamilova, a native and citizen 10 of Uzbekistan, seeks review of a November 27, 2017, decision 11 of the BIA affirming a March 21, 2017, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”), and denying her motion to remand. In re Amira 15 Temirovna Kamilova, No. A205 444 888 (B.I.A. Nov. 27, 2017), 16 aff’g No. A205 444 888 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 21, 2017). 17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 18 and procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 21 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 22 applicable standards of review are well established. See 23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 24 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency did not err in 2 1 concluding that Kamilova failed to satisfy her burden of proof 2 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on 3 her ...

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