18-713 Pakhrin v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A206 059 769 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 4th day of May, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JETHI MAYA PAKHRIN, AKA TIL 14 KUMARI JOSHI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-713 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph F. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Mary Jane 29 Candaux, Assistant Director; 30 Michael C. Heyse, Trial 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 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Jethi Maya Pakhrin, a native and citizen of 6 Nepal, seeks review of a February 22, 2018, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a June 16, 2017, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Jethi Maya Pakhrin, No. A206 059 769 (B.I.A. 11 Feb. 22, 2018), aff’g No. A206 059 769 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 12 June 16, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history. 14 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s and 15 BIA’s decisions without considering the IJ’s denial of asylum 16 as untimely because the BIA declined to rely on that finding 17 in dismissing Pakhrin's appeal. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 18 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 19 applicable standards of review are well established. See 20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 21 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 22 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 23 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 1 determination on . . . the consistency between the 2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals