Gjuraj v. Garland

20-3086 Gjuraj v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A205 825 356 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 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 12th day of January, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: WILLIAM J. NARDINI, BETH ROBINSON, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ORLAND GJURAJ, Petitioner, v. 20-3086 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Esq., Vernon, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jacob A. Bashyrov, 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 Orland Gjuraj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of an August 31, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a May 22, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Gjuraj’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Orland Gjuraj, No. A205 825 356 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2020), aff’g No. A205 825 356 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 22, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review an adverse credibility determination under a substantial evidence standard, Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of 2 fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal inconsistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, …

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