Khatri v. Garland

20-1718 Khatri v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A205 657 543 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 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 10th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JHAM BAHADUR KHATRI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1718 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Jason Schaffer, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 28 Kelting, Assistant Director; 1 Elizabeth K. Ottman, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Jham Bahadur Khatri, a native and citizen of 11 Nepal, seeks review of a May 7, 2020, decision of the BIA 12 affirming a July 18, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 13 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Jham Bahadur Khatri, No. A205 657 543 (B.I.A. 16 May 7, 2020), aff’g No. A205 657 543 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City 17 July 18, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 20 BIA, that is, excluding the demeanor finding on which the BIA 21 did not rely. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 22 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 23 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) 24 (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless 2 1 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 2 the contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 3 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination 4 under a substantial-evidence standard). “Considering the 5 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 6 trier of fact may base a credibility determination …

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