19-2958 Chichilanov v. Garland BIA Palmer, IJ A209 024 176 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 12th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A, CABRANES, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ROMAN CHICHILANOV, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2958 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Julia Greenberg, Esq., New York, 24 NY. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Derek C. Julius, Assistant 2 Director; Anthony O. Pottinger, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, 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 Petitioner Roman Chichilanov, a native and citizen of 12 Russia, seeks review of an August 29, 2019 decision of the 13 BIA affirming an April 5, 2019 decision of an Immigration 14 Judge (“IJ”) denying Chichilanov’s application for asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Roman Chichilanov, No. A 209 17 024 176 (B.I.A. Aug. 29, 2019), aff’g No. A 209 024 176 (Immig. 18 Ct. N.Y. City April 5, 2019). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 21 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 22 Cir. 2005). Chichilanov asserts his due process rights were 23 violated as a result of interpreter error at his video hearing 24 before the IJ; he also challenges the agency’s adverse 2 1 credibility determination. 2 “To establish a violation of due process, an alien must 3 show that []he was denied a full and fair opportunity to 4 present [his] claims or that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived 5 [him] of fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 6 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals