19-2604 Bhattarai v. Barr BIA Conroy, IJ A 206 561 825 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 10th day of November, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ASHOK BHATTARAI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2604 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Bhatta Law & 24 Associates, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 1 Director; Jenny C. Lee, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 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 GRANTED. 10 Petitioner Ashok Bhattarai, a native and citizen of 11 Nepal, seeks review of a July 24, 2019 decision of the BIA 12 affirming a February 1, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 13 (“IJ”) denying Bhattarai’s application for asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ashok Bhattarai, No. A206 561 16 825 (B.I.A. July 24, 2019), aff’g No. A206 561 825 (Immig. 17 Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 1, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See 20 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 21 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 23 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 24 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 2 1 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency 2 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 3 statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 4 statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with 5 other evidence of record . . . without regard to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals