18-2434 Lkhamjav v. Barr BIA Ruehle, IJ A205 152 815 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 28th day of April, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GANBAATAR LKHAMJAV, AKA LKHAMJAV 14 GANBAATAR, AKA GARBAATAR 15 LKHANJAV, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 18-2434 19 NAC 20 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Frederick P. Korkosz, Albany, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Cindy S. 29 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 30 Genevieve M. Kelly, Attorney, 31 Office of Immigration Litigation, 32 United States Department of 33 Justice, 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 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 5 Petitioner Ganbaatar Lkhamjav, a native and citizen of 6 Mongolia, seeks review of an August 9, 2018, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a July 20, 2017, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Ganbaatar Lkhamjav, No. A 205 152 815 (B.I.A. 11 Aug. 9, 2018), aff’g No. A205 152 815 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo 12 July 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history. 14 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 15 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 16 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 17 applicable standards of review are well established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 19 (2d Cir. 2013). 20 The agency concluded that Lkhamjav is statutorily 21 ineligible for asylum because his application was untimely 22 filed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B). The agency considered 2 1 Lkhamjav’s argument that changed country conditions— 2 specifically that those who allegedly targeted him in 3 Mongolia had become more powerful—excused his delay in filing 4 his application. See ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals