17-2830 Ahmed v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A099 396 158 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 24th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MUNIR AHMED, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2830 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard W. Chen, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Kevin 28 J. Conway, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Munir Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 6 seeks review of an August 18, 2017, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a November 28, 2016, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 9 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Munir Ahmed, No. A099 396 158 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2017), aff’g 11 No. A099 396 158 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 28, 2016). We 12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 15 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. 16 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We 17 review the agency’s adverse credibility determination for 18 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 19 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering 20 the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, 21 a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on ... 22 the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and 2 1 oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 2 statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with 3 other evidence of record . . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals