19-2708 Uprety v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A200 179 165 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 4th day of January, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ACHYUT CHANDRA UPRETY, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2708 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Ramesh K. Shrestha, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Cindy S. 27 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 28 Genevieve M. Kelly, Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Achyut Chandra Uprety, a native and citizen 6 of Nepal, seeks review of an August 8, 2019 decision of the 7 BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that 8 denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, 9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and 10 declining to remand for consideration of new evidence. In 11 re Achyut Chandra Uprety, No. A200 179 165 (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 12 2019), aff’g No. A200 179 165 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 4, 13 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 underlying facts and procedural history. 15 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 16 by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 17 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 19 2010) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence 20 and questions of law de novo); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of 2 1 Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2005) (reviewing denial 2 of motion to remand for abuse of discretion). 3 1. Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief 4 To establish eligibility for asylum, Uprety was required 5 to show that he suffered past persecution, or that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals