17-378 Ahmed v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A200 237 468 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of January, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FAEZ AHMED, Petitioner, v. 17-378 NAC MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Salim Sheikh, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- Kelting, Assistant Director; Jacob A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Faez Ahmed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a January 9, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a February 29, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ahmed’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Faez Ahmed, No. A 200 237 468 (B.I.A. Jan. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 200 237 468 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 29, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues under review. Under the circumstances of Ahmed’s petition, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). First, we conclude that the agency reasonably relied on the record from Ahmed’s credible fear interview. Although, 2 “adverse credibility determinations based on ‘discrepancies’ with a credible fear interview should be examined with care,” Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 180-81 (2d Cir. 2004)), “[w]here the record of a credible fear interview displays the hallmarks of reliability, it appropriately can be considered in assessing an alien’s credibility,” id. The agency here reasonably found that the record from Ahmed’s interview displayed such hallmarks. For example, the interview was conducted with ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals