17-3935 Akter v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A206 297 955/956 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 18th day of October, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOKSENA AKTER, MOHAMMAD SAIDUR 14 RAHMAN, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 17-3935 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Song Park, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Surell 30 Brady, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 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 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 5 Petitioners Moksena Akter and Mohammad Saidur Rahman, 6 natives and citizens of Bangladesh, seek review of a November 7 9, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 1, 2017, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Akter’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Moksena 11 Akter, Mohammad Saidur Rahman, No. A 206 297 955/956 (B.I.A. 12 Nov. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 297 955/956 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 13 City Mar. 1, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 14 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 18 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 19 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin 20 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 First, we decline to remand based on intervening caselaw, 22 as requested by Akter. The decision cited by Akter is not 23 relevant to her case because Akter did not identify a new 2 1 group on appeal. See Matter ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals