18-1749 Gautam v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A202 079 024 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 November, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 TILAK NATH GAUTAM, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-1749 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 H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Kiley Kane, Paul 1 Fiorino, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Tilak Nath Gautam, a native and citizen of 12 Nepal, seeks review of a May 21, 2018, decision of the BIA 13 affirming a June 14, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 14 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 15 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Tilak Nath Gautam, No. A202 079 024 (B.I.A. 17 May 21, 2018), aff’g No. A202 079 024 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 18 June 14, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 21 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 22 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 23 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 24 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Lecaj 25 v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). 2 1 I. Internal Relocation 2 It is undisputed that Gautam established past persecution 3 in Nepal on account of his membership in the Nepali Congress 4 Party (“NCP”). Accordingly, he benefits from a presumption 5 of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. 6 § 1208.13(b)(1). However, the Government may rebut this 7 presumption if a preponderance of the evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals