20-3442 Chhetri v. Garland BIA Schoppert, IJ A202 088 106 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 17th day of June, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DIL BAHADUR CHHETRI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3442 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq., Bhatta 24 Law & Associates, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 28 Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 1 Christina R. Zeidan, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 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 Dil Bahadur Chhetri, a native and citizen of 11 Nepal, seeks review of a September 14, 2020 decision of the 12 BIA affirming an August 21, 2018 decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 14 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 15 re Dil Bahadur Chhetri, No. A 202 088 106 (B.I.A. Sept. 14, 16 2020), aff’g No. A 202 088 106 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 21, 17 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 21 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 22 the agency’s adverse credibility determination for 23 substantial evidence, see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 24 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat the agency’s findings of 2 1 fact as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 2 be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “The scope of review under the substantial 4 evidence standard is exceedingly narrow, and we will uphold 5 the BIA’s decision unless the petitioner demonstrates that 6 the record evidence …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals