Lama v. Barr

18-2443 Lama v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A205 621 461 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 17th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHHIRING LAMA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2443 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Bhatta Law & 24 Associates, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Claire L. 28 Workman, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; John F. Stanton, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 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 Chhiring Lama, a native and citizen of Nepal, 6 seeks review of a July 24, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming 7 a July 26, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 8 denying Lama’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Chhiring Lama, No. A 205 621 461 (B.I.A. July 11 24, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 621 461 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 12 26, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history. 14 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 15 by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 16 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 17 established. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 18 2010). 19 To establish eligibility for asylum, Lama was required 20 to show that she suffered past persecution, or that she has 21 a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of her 22 race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 2 1 social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 2 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i). When a petitioner establishes past 3 persecution, there is a presumption of a well-founded fear of ...

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