18-1138 BK v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A202 125 042 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 13th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 B HIRIRA BK, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1138 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 24 York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Sabatino F. Leo, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel; Linda Y. 2 Cheng, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner B Hirira BK, a native and citizen of Nepal, 11 seeks review of a March 19, 2018 decision of the BIA 12 affirming a June 26, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge 13 (“IJ”) denying BK’s application for asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re B Hirira BK, No. A 202 125 042 (B.I.A. Mar. 16 19, 2018), aff’g No. A 202 125 042 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jun. 17 26, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both 20 the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 21 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 22 agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial 23 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 24 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the 2 1 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 2 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the 3 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , 4 the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and 5 oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each 6 such statement, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals