17-1197 Rana v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A205 301 041 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 23rd day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHOHEL RANA, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-1197 18 NAC 19 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, 27 New York, NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Daniel E. 3 Goldman, Senior Litigation 4 Counsel; Lindsay Corliss, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Shohel Rana, a native and citizen of 15 Bangladesh, seeks review of a March 28, 2017, decision of the 16 BIA affirming a July 12, 2016, decision of an Immigration 17 Judge (“IJ”) denying Rana’s application for asylum, 18 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 19 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shohel Rana, No. A205 301 041 20 (B.I.A. Mar. 28, 2017), aff’g No. A205 301 041 (Immig. Ct. 21 N.Y. City July 12, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 22 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 23 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 24 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 25 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 26 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 27 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 2 1 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 3 that the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 4 circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on an 5 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 6 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies or omissions 7 in his or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals