17-3529 Hysaj v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A208 752 131 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 29th day of October, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EMANUEL HYSAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3529 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Esq., 24 Brooklyn, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Patricia E. Bruckner, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 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 Emanuel Hysaj, a native and citizen of 6 Albania, seeks review of an October 12, 2017 decision of the 7 BIA affirming a December 5, 2016 decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Hysaj’s application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Emanuel Hysaj, No. A 208 752 11 131 (B.I.A. Oct. 12, 2017), aff’g No. A 208 752 131 (Immig. 12 Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 5, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 18 agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its 19 legal conclusions de novo. See Niang v. Holder, 762 F.3d 20 251, 253 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 21 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility 22 determination under a substantial evidence standard). 2 1 Frivolous Finding 2 “A person who makes an application for asylum determined 3 to be ‘frivolous,’ or deliberately and materially false, is 4 subject to a grave penalty: permanent ineligibility for most ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals