17-462 Sindh v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A206 443 904 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 30th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PARMINDER SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-462 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dalbir Singh, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Cindy S. 27 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 28 Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 1 According to the parties’ briefs, the Petitioner’s surname is “Singh” rather than “Sindh.” The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to amend the caption as above. 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Parminder Singh, a native and citizen of 9 India, seeks review of a January 19, 2017, decision of the 10 BIA affirming a July 7, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge 11 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of 12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Parminder Sindh, No. A 206 443 904 (B.I.A. 14 Jan. 19, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 443 904 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. 15 July 7, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t 19 of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 20 adverse credibility determinations under a substantial 21 evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 22 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The 2 1 governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides: 2 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 3 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 4 credibility determination on the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals