18-2854 Fuseini v. Barr BIA Zagzoug, IJ A208 120 768 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 17th day of November, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 BUHARI FUSEINI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2854 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Andrew N. 28 O’Malley, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Kimberly A. Burdge, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 6 AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of 7 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Buhari Fuseini, a native and citizen of Ghana, 9 seeks review of a September 10, 2018, decision of the BIA 10 affirming an August 29, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 11 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Buhari Fuseini, No. A208 120 768 (B.I.A. Sept. 14 10, 2018), aff’g No. A208 120 768 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 15 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 19 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 20 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 21 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 22 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76–77 (2d Cir. 2018). 23 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 24 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 25 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 2 1 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 2 applicant’s . . . account, the consistency between the 3 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals