18-2618 Malonda v. Barr BIA Connelly, IJ A209 150 722 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of November, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DIEKA MALONDA, Petitioner, v. 18-2618 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Dieka Malonda, pro se, Patterson, CA. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Judith O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. Petitioner Dieka Malonda, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”), seeks review of an August 16, 2018 decision of the BIA, affirming a September 22, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying Malonda’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dieka Malonda, No. A209 150 722 (B.I.A. Aug. 16, 2018), aff’g No. A209 150 722 (Immigr. Ct. Batavia, N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the resettlement finding that the BIA declined to reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 2 agency's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, which treats such findings as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); accord Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing the question of nexus for substantial evidence). However, we will “vacate and remand for new findings . . . if the agency’s reasoning or its factfinding process was sufficiently flawed.” Lin v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir. 2009). Malonda asserted that, in 2005, soldiers in the DRC attacked him, raped and killed three of his sisters, and abducted his father and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals