18-3620 (L) Lumaj v. Garland BIA Cassin, IJ A206 364 417 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 April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EDMOND LUMAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3620 (L), 17 19-2036 (Con) 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent.1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: David A. Isaacson, Esq., Cyrus D. 25 Mehta & Partners PLLC, New York, 26 N.Y. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant 3 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 4 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse 5 D. Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office 6 of Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Edmond Lumaj, a native and citizen of 14 Albania, seeks review of (1) a June 27, 2019, decision of 15 the BIA denying his motion to reconsider, In re Edmond 16 Lumaj, No. A206 364 417 (B.I.A. June 27, 2019), and (2) a 17 November 8, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a November 18 6, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 19 his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 20 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), In re 21 Edmond Lumaj, No. A 206 364 417 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2018), aff’g 22 No. A 206 364 417 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 6, 2017). We 23 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 24 and procedural history. 25 2 1 A. Docket 18-3620(L), Order of Removal 2 Under the circumstances, we review the IJ’s decision as 3 modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. 4 U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan 5 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We 6 review adverse credibility determinations under …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals