18-3737 Rahman v. Wilkinson BIA Kolbe, IJ A208 455 354 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 28th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JOLILOR RAHMAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3737 17 NAC 18 MONTY WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Usman Ahmad, Law Office of Usman 24 B. Ahmad, P.C., Long Island City, 25 NY. 26 1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Anthony P. 3 Nicastro, Assistant Director; Dana 4 M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Jolilor Rahman, a native and citizen of 13 Bangladesh, seeks review of a November 21, 2018 decision of 14 the BIA affirming an October 17, 2017 decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re Jolilor Rahman, No. A 208 16 455 354 (B.I.A. Nov. 21, 2018), aff’g No. A 208 455 354(Immigr. 17 Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 17, 2017). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 20 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 22 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 23 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) 24 (“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 25 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 1 contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 2 Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for 3 substantial evidence). 4 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 5 relevant factors, a trier ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals