Kalluci v. Garland

20-1712 Kalluci v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A200 648 012 & 206 301 609/610 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 23rd day of November, two thousand twenty-two. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 7 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 8 EUNICE C. LEE, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 BRIXHIDA KALLUCI, LORNA KALLUCI, 13 AGNES KALLUCI, 14 15 Petitioners, 16 v. No. 20-1712 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States 19 Attorney General, 20 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONERS: Gregory Marotta, Law Office of Gregory 2 Marotta, Vernon, NJ. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General, Civil Division; Michelle Latour, 6 Deputy Director, Office of Immigration 7 Litigation; Spencer Shucard, Trial Attorney, 8 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 9 States Department of Justice, Washington, 10 DC. 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of 12 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 13 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioners Brixhida Kalluci (“Kalluci”), and her daughters Lorna and Agnes 15 Kalluci, all natives and citizens of Albania, seek review of a May 20, 2020 decision 16 of the BIA affirming a May 4, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 17 Kalluci’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), to which she had named Lorna and Agnes 19 as derivative beneficiaries. In re Brixhida Kalluci, et al., Nos. A200 648 012 & 206 20 301 609/610 (B.I.A. May 20, 2020), aff’g No. A 200 648 012 & 206 301 609/610 (Immig. 21 Ct. N.Y. City May 4, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 22 underlying facts and procedural history. 23 In her brief, Kalluci challenges the IJ’s adverse-credibility finding, which 2 1 was its sole basis for denying her claims for relief. 1 We review an adverse- 2 credibility determination for substantial evidence, Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 3 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and will deviate from such a determination only if, “from 4 the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 5 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Id. (internal quotation …

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