20-1137 Takhtakhunov v. Garland BIA Farber, IJ A215 747 310 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 26th day of July, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RENAT TAKHTAKHUNOV, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-1137 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. * 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Edgar L. Fankbonner, Esq., 24 Goldberger & Dubin, PC, New York, 25 NY. 26 * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Bernard A. 3 Joseph , Senior Litigation 4 Counsel; Rodolfo D. Saenz, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Renat Takhtakhunov, a native and citizen of 14 Kazakhstan, seeks review of a March 13, 2020 decision of the 15 BIA, affirming a September 27, 2019 decision of an Immigration 16 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 17 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 18 re Renat Takhtakhunov, No. A 215 747 310 (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 19 2020), aff’g No. A 215 747 310 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 27, 20 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 21 underlying facts and procedural history. 22 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 23 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 24 Cir. 2005). We review the IJ’s factual findings under the 25 substantial evidence standard, and we review questions of 2 1 law, including the IJ’s findings concerning the legal 2 sufficiency of the evidence, de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 3 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 4 2014); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 281-83 (2d 5 Cir. 2006). 6 To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must 7 show …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals