17-4096 Salat Suraw Abdi v. Merrick B. Garland 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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 2nd day of April, two thousand twenty-one. Present: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ SALAT SURAW ABDI, AKA SALAT DHERE, Petitioner, v. 17-4096-ag MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Petitioner: TIMOTHY W. HOOVER, Hoover & Durland LLP, Buffalo, NY. Appearing for Respondent: JEFFREY A. HALL, Counsel; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Jeffrey Meyer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision be and it hereby is GRANTED. Petitioner Salat Suraw Abdi, a native and citizen of Somalia, seeks review of the December 7, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a July 11, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Abdi’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying in the first instance his motion to remand. In re Salat Suraw Abdi, No. A209 991 745 (B.I.A. Dec. 7, 2017), aff’g No. A209 991 745 (Immig. Ct. Batavia July 11, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). As an initial matter, contrary to the government’s contention, Abdi did not waive challenges to the agency’s conclusions that he failed to establish that the terrorist group al-Shabaab persecuted him in the past or would likely torture him in the future. Abdi challenges the agency’s reasons for those determinations— specifically, its corroboration and acquiescence findings. The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018). To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear or likelihood of future persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals