17-2608 Mecaj v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A200 589 904 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 6th day of June, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 KLAUDIO MECAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2608 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Esq., Vernon, NJ. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 27 Assistant Director; Jennifer A. 28 Singer, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Klaudio Mecaj, a native and citizen of 6 Albania, seeks review of a July 28, 2017, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a January 26, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Klaudio 10 Mecaj, No. A200 589 904 (B.I.A. July 28, 2017), aff’g No. 11 A200 589 904 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 26, 2017). We assume 12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 16 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well established. 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 19 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 20 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 Mecaj argues that the IJ was biased and deprived him of 22 due process by (1) setting an arbitrary deadline for 2 1 corroborating evidence, (2) questioning him too aggressively, 2 (3) relying on the omission of a detention from his asylum 3 application in finding him not credible, and (4) refusing to 4 credit Dr. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals