17-4122 Doleck Nepali v. Barr BIA Sichel, IJ A098 822 069 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 for the Second Circuit, held 2 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 3 York, on the 24th day of September , two thousand twenty. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNIS JACOBS, 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 DICKY DOLKER DOLECK NEPALI, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 17-4122 16 17 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: GARY J. YERMAN, The Yerman Group, LLC, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: ALISON MARIE IGOE (Lyle E. Jentzer, on the brief), Office of 26 Immigration Litigation, for Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 28 Civil Division, Washington, DC. 29 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration 2 Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the 3 petition for review is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Dicky Dolker Doleck Nepali, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a 5 November 28, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a March 5, 2014 decision of an Immigration 6 Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 7 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dicky Dolker Doleck Nepali, No. A098 822 069 8 (B.I.A. Nov. 28, 2017), aff’g No. A098 822 069 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 5, 2014). We assume 9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 10 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 11 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 12 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); see also Secaida-Rosales v. 13 I.N.S., 331 F.3d 297, 306–07 (2d Cir. 2003). 14 Doleck Nepali asserted past persecution and a fear of future persecution and torture based 15 on her claims that (1) police in Nepal beat and detained her for having participated in a pro-Tibet 16 rally in 2002, and (2) Maoists occasionally hit her while trying to extort her family between 2001 17 and 2004. We find no error in the agency’s determinations that Doleck ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals