18-2253 Katuwal v. Wilkinson BIA Thompson, IJ A205 818 931 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 23rd day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 BIMALA KATUWAL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2253 18 NAC 19 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent.* 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Bhatta Law & 26 Associates, New York, NY. 27 * Pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: [VACANT], Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 3 Kelting, Assistant Director; 4 Anthony J. Messuri, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Bimala Katuwal, a native and citizen of Nepal, 15 seeks review of a July 6, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming 16 an August 29, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 17 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, 18 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 19 re Bimala Katuwal, No. A 205 818 931 (B.I.A. July 6, 2018), 20 aff’g No. A 205 818 931 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 29, 2017). We 21 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 22 procedural history. 23 We review the decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA 24 under the substantial evidence standard. See Xue Hong Yang 25 v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005) (“We 26 uphold the factual findings of the BIA or IJ so long as they 2 1 are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and, in 2 applying the substantial evidence standard, we afford 3 particular deference to credibility findings.” (internal 4 citations omitted)); see also Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 5 114 (2d Cir. 2010). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals