21-6066 Traore v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A205 817 313 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of June, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DRISSA SOULEYMANE TRAORE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6066 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., New York, 2 NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Holly M. Smith, Assistant Director; 6 Jesse D. Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Drissa Souleymane Traore, a native and citizen of Mali, seeks 14 review of a January 13, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming an October 19, 2018, 15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 17 (“CAT”). In re Drissa Souleymane Traore, No. A205 817 313 (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2021), 18 aff’g No. A205 817 313 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 19, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See 21 Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). We review factual findings 22 for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 23 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless 2 1 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, “the applicant [must] 4 present credible testimony that he subjectively fears persecution and establish that 5 his fear is objectively reasonable.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d 6 Cir. 2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). A “fear may be well-founded even if 7 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals