18-3274 Chapagai v. Wilkinson BIA Lopez Defillo, IJ A202 138 448 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 17th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHANKAR CHAPAGAI, AKA SHANKAR 14 CHAPAGAIN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3274 18 NAC 19 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq., Bhatta 25 Law & Associates, New York, NY. 26 1Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; 2 Brooke Marie Maurer, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Shankar Chapagai, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks 12 review of an October 3, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming 13 an October 23, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 14 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 15 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shankar 16 Chapagai, No. A 202 138 448 (B.I.A. Oct. 3, 2018), aff’g No. 17 A 202 138 448 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 23, 2017). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 22 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 23 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 2 1 Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 2 evidence and questions of law and application of law to fact 3 de novo). 4 Chapagai alleged that between October and December 2013, 5 members of the Maoist Party threatened him multiple times and 6 beat him on one occasion because of his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals