19-1480 Rahman v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 181 807 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 6th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FAYJUR RAHMAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1480 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., 24 New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Kohsei Ugumori , Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; David Kim, 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Fayjur Rahman, a native and citizen of 10 Bangladesh, seeks review of a May 7, 2019, decision of the 11 BIA affirming a November 15, 2017, decision of an Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”), denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 13 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 14 re Fayjur Rahman, No. A 206 181 807 (B.I.A. May 7, 2019), 15 aff’g No. A 206 181 807 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 15, 2017). 16 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 17 and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See 19 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 20 We review the agency’s adverse credibility determination for 21 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 22 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering 23 the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, 2 1 a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the 2 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , 3 the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and 4 oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 5 statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with 6 other evidence of record . . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals