Nduwimana v. Barr

18-1690 Nduwimana v. Barr BIA Reid, IJ A213 045 920 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of September, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ APOLLINAIRE NDUWIMANA, Petitioner, v. 18-1690 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: William J. Harrington, Allison R. Klein, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; Christina P. Greer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Apollinaire Nduwimana, a native and citizen of Burundi, seeks review of a May 9, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a December 7, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Nduwimana’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Apollinaire Nduwimana, No. A 213 045 920 (B.I.A. May 9, 2018), aff’g No. A 213 045 920 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Dec. 7, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal. “We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the arguments for denying relief” that the BIA declined to reach. Urgen v. Holder, 768 F.3d 269, 272 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam).1 The standards of review are well 1 Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases, all internal quotation marks, alterations, emphases, footnotes, and citations are omitted. 2 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence). The agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements or between his statements and other evidence, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from ...

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