Selvaraj v. Garland

20-817 Selvaraj v. Garland BIA Cheng, IJ A206 061 698 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 22nd day of September, 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 SASHIKUMAR SELVARAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-817 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General; 27 Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Jacob A. 1 Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office 2 of Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 9 Petitioner Sashikumar Selvaraj, a native and citizen of 10 Sri Lanka, seeks review of a February 10, 2020 decision of 11 the BIA affirming a May 10, 2018 decision of an Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 13 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In 14 re Sashikumar Selvaraj, No. A 206 061 698 (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 15 2020), aff’g No. A 206 061 698 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 10, 16 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history, to which we refer 18 only as necessary to explain our decision to grant in part 19 and deny in part the petition. 20 We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. 21 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 22 The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are 2 1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary”); Hong Fei Gao v. 3 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (explaining that we 4 review adverse credibility determinations under the 5 substantial evidence standard); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 6 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing …

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