20-529 Huda v. Garland BIA Lurye, IJ A200 815 893 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 3rd day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NAJ MUL HUDA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-529 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Mahfuzur Rahman, Esq., Elmhurst, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Daniel E. Goldman, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel; Robbin K. 2 Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner, Naj Mul Huda, a native and citizen of 11 Bangladesh, seeks review of a January 15, 2020, decision of 12 the BIA affirming a May 7, 2018, decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) denying Huda’s application for asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Naj Mul Huda, No. A200 815 16 893 (B.I.A. Jan. 15, 2020), aff’g No. A200 815 893 (Immig. 17 Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision including the portions 20 not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 21 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 22 dispositive adverse credibility determination for substantial 23 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 24 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 3 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 4 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal 5 consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of 6 such statements with other evidence …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals