16-1098 Panthi v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 239 154 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SUMAN PANTHI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1098 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel, 28 Christina P. Greer, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Suman Panthi, a native and citizen of Nepal, 6 seeks review of a March 14, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming 7 a January 6, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 8 denying Panthi’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Suman Panthi, No. A205 239 154 (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 11 2016), aff’g No. A205 239 154 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 6, 12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 13 facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 15 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 16 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are 17 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. 18 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir. 2008). 19 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 20 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on the plausibility 21 of an applicant’s account or inconsistencies in her statements 2 1 and other record evidence with or “without regard to whether” 2 those inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s 3 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 4 at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals