Ullah v. Garland

16-49 Ullah v. Garland BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A087 783 561 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 20th day of September, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 NAEEM ULLAH, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-49 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Esq., 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony C. 1 Payne, Assistant Director; Jeffery 2 R. Leist, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Naeem Ullah, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 12 seeks review of a December 9, 2015 decision of the BIA 13 affirming a July 10, 2014 decision of an Immigration Judge 14 (“IJ”) denying Ullah’s application for asylum, withholding of 15 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Naeem Ullah, No. A087 783 561 (B.I.A. Dec. 17 9, 2015), aff’g No. A087 783 561 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 10, 18 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 21 the BIA. See Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS, 446 F.3d 289, 293, 296 (2d 22 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the 24 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 contrary”); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 3 Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for 4 substantial evidence); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 5 (2d Cir. 2009) (providing that constitutional claims and 6 questions of law are reviewed de novo). 7 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 8 relevant factors, a trier of …

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