17-369 Rahman v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A206 233 967 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 8th day of May, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MASUDER RAHMAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-369 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Indra Pal, Brooklyn, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Virginia Lum, Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Masuder Rahman, a native and citizen of 10 Bangladesh, seeks review of a January 10, 2017, decision of 11 the BIA affirming a February 23, 2016, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Rahman’s application for 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Masuder Rahman, 15 No. A 206 233 967 (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 233 16 967 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 23, 2016). We assume the 17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 18 history in this case. 19 We review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See 20 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 21 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 23 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the totality of the 2 1 circumstances, . . . a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 3 the applicant . . . , the consistency between the applicant’s 4 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal 5 consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such 6 statements with other evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals