20-738 Irakoze v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A205 277 607 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 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 1st day of June, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ AXEL IRAKOZE, Petitioner, v. 20-738 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Anne E. Doebler, Esq., Buffalo, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Timonthy G. Hayes, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kimberly A. Burdge, 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 Axel Irakoze, a native and citizen of Burundi, seeks review of a January 28, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a March 27, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Axel Irakoze, No. A205 277 607 (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 2020), aff’g No. A205 277 607 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Mar. 27, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary”); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo). The alien bears the burden of proving his eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(C) (withholding of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (CAT). “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the . . . testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals