18-2327 Regmi v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 180 902 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 JIT BAHADUR REGMI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2327 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; Carl McIntyre, 29 Assistant Director; Brooke Marie 1 Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 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 Jit Bahadur Regmi, a native and citizen of 11 Nepal, seeks review of a July 16 2018, decision of the BIA 12 affirming an August 10, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 13 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Jit Bahadur Regmi, No. A206 180 902 (B.I.A. 16 Jul. 16, 2018), aff’g No. A206 180 902 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 17 Aug. 10, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 21 internal relocation finding that the BIA did not reach. See 22 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 23 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 24 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Lecaj v. Holder, 25 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). 2 1 I. Fundamental Change in Country Conditions 2 It is undisputed that Regmi established that he suffered 3 past persecution in Nepal by members of the Nepal Communist 4 Party-Maoist (“Maoists”) on account of his membership in the 5 rival Nepali Congress Party (“NCP”). Accordingly, he 6 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals