19-492 Jiaman v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A202 134 998 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 TO 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 21st day of June, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MD BODIU JIAMAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-492 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, Esq., 24 New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, 28 Assistant Director; Jacob A. 29 Bashyrov, Trial Attorney; Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Md Bodiu Jiaman, a native and citizen of 9 Bangladesh, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an 10 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Jiaman’s application for 11 asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against 12 Torture (“CAT”) relief. See In re Md Bodiu Jiaman, No. A202 13 134 998 (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2019), aff’g No. A202 134 998 (Immig. 14 Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 13, 2017). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16 We review the IJ’s decision, as modified by the BIA, 17 “under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that 18 [it] be supported by reasonable, substantial and probative 19 evidence in the record when considered as a whole.” Hong Fei 20 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018)(internal 21 quotation marks omitted). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 22 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 23 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 24 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Id. 2 1 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Considering the 2 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 3 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . 4 the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written 5 and oral statements …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals