17-1771 Ramos-De Lopez v. Whitaker BIA Christensen, IJ A206 896 837/838 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 8th day of January, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ROSA IRMA RAMOS-DE LOPEZ, CARLOS STANLEY LOPEZ-RAMOS, Petitioners, v. 17-1771 NAC MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; John D. Williams, 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 Rosa Irma Ramos-De Lopez and her son, Carlos Stanley Lopez-Ramos, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a May 8, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a December 7, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rosa Irma Ramos-De Lopez and Carlos Stanley Lopez-Ramos, Nos. A 206 896 837/838 (B.I.A. May 8, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 896 837/838 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 7, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, and address only the adverse credibility determination. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the totality of the 2 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. The multiple inconsistencies ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals