16-2498 Garha v. Sessions BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A075 261 527 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 21st day of December, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JAGTAR SINGH GARHA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2498 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, 28 Assistant Director; Regan 29 Hildebrand, Senior Litigation 30 Counsel, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Jagtar Singh Garha, a native and citizen of 6 India, seeks review of a June 14, 2016, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a May 14, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying Garha’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Jagtar Singh Garha, No. A075 261 527 (B.I.A. 11 June 14, 2016), aff’g No. A075 261 527 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 12 May 14, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision, but not the reasons for 15 denying relief that the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang 16 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 17 applicable standards of review are well established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 19 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, in light of 21 “the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse 22 credibility determination on inconsistencies and 23 implausibilities in an applicant’s statements. 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 2 (2d Cir. 2008). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals