17-3802 Balasegarathum v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A205 710 146 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of September, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, GERARD E. LYNCH, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ PIRASATH BALASEGARATHUM, Petitioner, v. 17-3802 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Pirasath Balasegarathum, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of a BIA decision of the BIA affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Balasegarathum’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Balasegarathum, No. A 205 710 146 (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 710 146 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 22, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018); Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 111 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 Adverse Credibility Determination The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances[,] . . . base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements or between his statements and other evidence, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163–64 (2d Cir. 2008). We “defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals