18-3816 Shrestha v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A208 927 770 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 16th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LAXMAN SHRESTHA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3816 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent.* 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq., Bhatta 25 Law & Associates, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Kohsei 29 Ugumori, Senior Litigation * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 Counsel; David J. Schor, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 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 Laxman Shrestha, a native and citizen of 12 Nepal, seeks review of a November 29, 2018, decision of the 13 BIA affirming a November 2, 2017, decision of an Immigration 14 Judge (“IJ”) denying Shrestha’s application for asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Laxman Shrestha, No. A208 927 17 770 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018), aff’g No. A208 927 770 (Immig. 18 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 2, 2017). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for 21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 22 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of 23 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 24 Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). 2 1 The agency did not err in concluding that Shrestha failed 2 to satisfy his burden of proof for asylum, withholding of 3 removal, and CAT relief based on his claim that Maoists 4 attempted to attack him in 2009 and threatened …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals