20-3154 Alam-Bhuyan v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A206 025 881 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 Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 20th day of July, two thousand twenty-three. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 MD ANWARUL ALAM-BHUYAN, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 20-3154 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 1 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., New York, 2 NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director; 6 Jaclyn G. Hagner, Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 11 AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is 12 REMANDED to the BIA. 13 Petitioner MD Anwarul Alam-Bhuyan, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 14 seeks review of an August 31, 2020 decision of the BIA denying his motion to 15 remand and affirming a May 29, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 16 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 17 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re MD Anwarul Alam-Bhuyan, No. 18 A206 025 881 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2020), aff’g No. A206 025 881 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. May 19 29, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 20 procedural history. 21 In his brief, Alam-Bhuyan challenges the IJ’s adverse-credibility finding, 22 which was the IJ’s sole basis for denying his claims for relief. We defer to an IJ’s 2 1 adverse-credibility determination “unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 2 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility 3 ruling.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation 4 marks omitted). On review, we ask “whether the agency has provided ‘specific, 5 cogent reasons for the adverse credibility finding and whether those reasons bear 6 a legitimate nexus to the finding.’” Id. at 77 (quoting Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 7 F.3d 162, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals