16‐2565 Maharjan v. Sessions BIA Cheng, IJ A087 787 839 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 ASUMMARY 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, 3 in the City of New York, on the 16th day of October, two thousand eighteen. 4 5 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 Circuit Judges, 8 WILLIAM H. PAULEY III,* 9 District Judge. 10 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 11 SABIN MAHARJAN, 12 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. No. 16‐2565‐ag 16 17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 * Judge William H. Pauley III, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Respondent. 2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3 FOR PETITIONER: KHAGENDRA GHARTI‐ 4 CHHETRY, Chhetry & 5 Associates, P.C., New York, 6 NY. 7 8 FOR RESPONDENT: ROBERT D. TENNYSON, JR., Trial 9 Attorney (Chad A. Readler, 10 Acting Assistant Attorney 11 General, Nancy E. Friedman, 12 Senior Litigation Counsel, 13 Sharon M. Clay, Trial 14 Attorney, on the brief), Office of 15 Immigration Litigation, United 16 States Department of Justice, 17 Washington, DC. 18 19 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 20 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 21 AND DECREED that the petition is GRANTED. 22 Petitioner Sabin Maharjan, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a 23 June 29, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming a January 14, 2015 decision of an 24 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Maharjan’s application for asylum, 25 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 26 (“CAT”). In re Sabin Maharjan, No. A 087 787 839 (B.I.A. June 29, 2016), aff’g 2 1 No. A 087 787 839 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 14, 2015). We assume the parties’ 2 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. 3 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and BIA’s 4 decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 5 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review an adverse credibility 6 determination for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 7 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165–66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, 8 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse credibility 9 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals