17-117 Dhali v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 879 064 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 27th day of June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HARUN DHALI, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-117 18 NAC 19 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, 27 Chhetry & Associates, P.C., New 28 York, NY. 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting 3 Assistant Attorney General; 4 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 5 Director; Kathleen Kelly 6 Volkert, Trial Attorney, Office 7 of Immigration Litigation, 8 United States Department of 9 Justice, Washington, DC. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 14 is DENIED. 15 Petitioner Harun Dhali, a native and citizen of 16 Bangladesh, seeks review of a December 13, 2016, decision of 17 the BIA affirming a March 6, 2016, decision of an Immigration 18 Judge (“IJ”) denying Dhali’s application for asylum, 19 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 20 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Harun Dhali, No. A205 879 064 21 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2016), aff’g No. A205 879 064 (Immig. Ct. 22 N.Y. City Mar. 6, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 23 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 24 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 25 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 26 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 27 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 2 1 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia 2 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 The REAL ID Act provides that the agency must 4 “[c]onsider[] the totality of the circumstances,” and may 5 base a credibility finding on inconsistencies or omissions in 6 an applicant’s or his witness’s statements, “without regard 7 to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals