16-2359 Uddin-Nessa v. Sessions BIA Schoppert, IJ A200 239 856 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 4th day of May, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AHMED SHAFIQ UDDIN-NESSA, AKA 14 MOHAMED SHAFIQ AHMED, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-2359 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Vernon, NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Sheri R. Glaser, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Ahmed Shafiq Uddin-Nessa, a native and citizen 6 of Bangladesh, seeks review of a June 17, 2016, decision of 7 the BIA affirming a February 25, 2015, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Ahmed Shafiq Uddin-Nessa, No. A200 239 856 11 (B.I.A. June 17, 2016), aff’g No. A200 239 856 (Immig. Ct. 12 N.Y. City Feb. 25, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 16 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 17 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 18 review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu 19 Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 22 determination on . . . the consistency between the 2 1 applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the 2 internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the 3 consistency ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals