20-3037 Ranabhat v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A208 685 937 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. 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 21st day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 GHANSHYAM RANABHAT, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3037 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 1 Assistant Director; Gregory A. 2 Pennington, Jr., Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, 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 Ghanshyam Ranabhat, a native and citizen of 11 Nepal, seeks review of an August 10, 2020, decision of the 12 BIA affirming a May 8, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge 13 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Ghanshyam Ranabhat, No. A 208 685 937 (B.I.A. 16 Aug. 10, 2020), aff’g No. A 208 685 937 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 17 May 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented and 20 modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 21 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 22 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 23 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“administrative findings of fact are 2 1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary”); Hong Fei Gao v. 3 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse 4 credibility determination under substantial evidence 5 standard). 6 The IJ may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 7 circumstances” base a credibility determination on an asylum 8 applicant’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals