Alam v. Sessions

16-3841 Alam v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A201 293 607 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of June, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: RAPLH K. WINTER, GUIDO CALABRESI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MASUD ALAM, AKA ALAM MASUD, Petitioner, v. 16-3841 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: David J. Rodkin, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Masud Alam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of an October 20, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a February 25, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Alam’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Masud Alam, No. A201 293 607 (B.I.A. Oct. 20, 2016), aff’g No. A 201 293 607 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 25, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his account, and “the consistency between 2 the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alam was not credible. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals