20-1848 Houmita v. Garland BIA Baumgarten, IJ A079 719 324 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of August, two thousand twenty- one. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ABDELHAKIM HOUMITA, Petitioner, v. 20-1848 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Vilia B. Hayes; Dustin P. Smith; Amina Hassan; Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Robbin K. Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Abdelhakim Houmita, a native and citizen of Algeria, seeks review of a May 14, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a November 19, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abdelhakim Houmita, No. A 079 719 324 (B.I.A. May 14, 2020), aff’g No. A079 719 324 (Immigr. Ct. Batavia Nov. 19, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The agency reasonably concluded that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) met its burden to rebut the presumption of future persecution by showing a fundamental change in conditions in Algeria. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 115, 119 (2d Cir. 2010) (reviewing country conditions determination for substantial evidence). An asylum applicant who has shown past persecution has a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). DHS can rebut that presumption by establishing by a preponderance of the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals