18-520 Abid v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 228 816 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 28th day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MUHAMMAD NOMAN ABID, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-520 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant 28 Director; Virginia Lum, Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 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 Muhammad Noman Abid, a native and citizen of 10 Pakistan, seeks review of a January 24, 2018, decision of the 11 BIA affirming a November 9, 2016, decision of an Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”) denying Abid’s application for asylum, 13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Muhammad Noman Abid, No. A 15 206 228 816 (B.I.A. Jan. 24, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 228 816 16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 9, 2016). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 19 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 22 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 23 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility 24 determination for substantial evidence). 2 1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 3 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 4 the applicant . . . , the consistency between the applicant’s 5 . . . written and oral statements . . . , ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals