19-1323 Sherpa v. Garland BIA Donnolo, IJ A206 626 195 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 22nd day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YANGLAMU SHERPA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1323 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. * 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Ramesh K. Shrestha, Esq., New 25 York, NY. 26 * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 3 Kelting , Assistant Director; 4 Christopher Buchanan, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 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 Yanglamu Sherpa, a native and citizen of 14 Nepal, seeks review of an April 16, 2019 decision of the BIA, 15 affirming a February 2, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 16 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 17 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yanglamu 18 Sherpa, No. A 206 626 195 (B.I.A. Apr. 16, 2019), aff’g No. A 19 206 626 195 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 2, 2018). We assume the 20 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 21 history. 22 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 23 BIA and reach only the adverse credibility determination on 24 which the BIA relied. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 25 Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 2 1 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 3 Cir. 2018). 4 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 5 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 6 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 7 or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals