16-2853 Ali v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 225 077 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 13th day of December, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 CHRISTOPHER. F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOHAMMED ALI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2853 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Briena L. 27 Strippoli, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; John M. McAdams, Jr., 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Mohammed Ali, a native and citizen of 6 Bangladesh, seeks review of an August 8, 2016, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a July 29, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying Ali’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Mohammed Ali, No. A 206 225 077 (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 11 2016), aff’g No. A 206 225 077 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 29, 12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 13 facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 15 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 16 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 19 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the totality of the 20 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 21 base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or 22 responsiveness of the applicant . . . the consistency between 23 the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . 2 1 and any inaccuracies or falsehoods ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals