18-3760 Ashif v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A205 014 432 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 20th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 KHONDOKER ZUBAIR ASHIF, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3760 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel, 29 Katherine A. Smith, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Khondoker Zubair Ashif, a native and citizen 9 of Bangladesh, seeks review of a November 28, 2018, decision 10 of the BIA affirming an October 27, 2017, decision of an 11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 12 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Khondoker Zubair Ashif, No. 14 A205 014 432 (B.I.A. Nov. 28, 2018), aff’g No. A205 014 432 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 In lieu of filing a brief, the government moves for 18 summary denial and to stay briefing. Rather than determine 19 if the petition is frivolous as required for summary denial, 20 Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16–17 (2d Cir. 1995), we construe 21 the government’s motion as an opposition brief and deny the 22 petition on the merits. 2 1 Ashif did not allege past persecution, and thus had the 2 burden to establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating 3 a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. 4 § 1208.13(b)(2); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 5 (2d Cir. 2004). This showing “requires that the alien 6 present credible testimony that he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals