20-2780 Terera v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A209 760 199 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 12th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 YUNUSA TERERA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2780 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Patrick Crowley, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General, Civil Division; 1 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation; Katherine 4 S. Fischer, Trial Attorney, U.S. 5 Department of Justice, Civil 6 Division, Office of Immigration 7 Litigation, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Yunusa Terera, a native and citizen of The 13 Gambia, seeks review of an August 6, 2020 decision of the BIA 14 affirming a May 23, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 15 (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding 16 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 17 (“CAT”). See In re Yunusa Terera, No. A 209 760 199 (B.I.A. 18 Aug. 6, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 760 199 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 19 May 23, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 22 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 23 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 24 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“administrative 25 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 2 1 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”); 2 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) 3 (reviewing adverse credibility determination for substantial 4 evidence). 5 An IJ may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 6 circumstances” base a credibility determination on 7 inconsistencies in an applicant’s statements or between his 8 statements …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals