17-3690 Pepaj v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 140 284 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 16th day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MIKEL PEPAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3690 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. DiRaimondo, Melville, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 28 Assistant Director; Carmel A. 29 Morgan, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 Mikel Pepaj, a native and citizen of Albania, 6 seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s 7 (“IJ”) denial of Pepaj’s application for asylum, withholding 8 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Mikel Pepaj, No. A 206 140 284 (B.I.A. Oct. 10 16, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 140 284 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 11 7, 2017). 12 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 13 decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 14 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005), applying 15 well established standards of review. See 8 U.S.C. 16 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 17 (2d Cir. 2018). In so doing, we assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 19 of this case, which we reference only as necessary to explain 20 our decision to deny the petition. 21 “[A] trier of fact may base a credibility determination 22 on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant 2 1 or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or 2 witness’s account, [and] the consistency between the 3 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . 4 without regard to whether an ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals