Salim v. Garland

20-853 Salim v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A201 291 842 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 17th day of August, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MYRNA PÉREZ 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOHAMMED SALIM, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-853 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Mahfuzur Rahman, Esq., Elmhurst, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 1 Director; Raya Jarawan, 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 Mohammed Salim, a native and citizen of 11 Bangladesh, seeks review of a February 10, 2020, decision of 12 the BIA affirming a March 30, 2018, decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 15 Mohammed Salim, No. A 201 291 842 (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 2020), 16 aff’g No. A 201 291 842 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 30, 2018). 17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 18 and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 20 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 21 Cir. 2005). We review adverse credibility determinations 22 under a substantial evidence standard, see Hong Fei Gao v. 23 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the 24 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the 3 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 4 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . 5 the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s 6 account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s 7 written and oral statements . . …

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