19-3629 Abaserbi v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A205 789 139 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 23rd day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SADAM USMAN ABASERBI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3629 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Stanley A. Cohen, Esq., 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Zoe J. 1 Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel; 2 Katherine A. Smith, Trial 3 Attorney, 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 Sadam Usman Abaserbi, a native and citizen of 12 Ethiopia, seeks review of a September 30, 2019, decision of 13 the BIA affirming a February 8, 2018, decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 15 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Sadam Usman Abaserbi, No. A 205 789 139 17 (B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2019), aff’g No. A 205 789 139 (Immig. Ct. 18 N.Y. City Feb. 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 19 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 21 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 22 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 23 adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, 24 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and 2 1 treat the agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive unless any 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 3 contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 4 An asylum applicant, like Abaserbi, who does not allege 5 past persecution, has the burden to demonstrate an 6 objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See 7 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b)(1) & …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals